[3.13] Docs: Fix typos in the "Memory Management" section (GH-151243)

[miss-islington]

(cherry picked from commit 8c0e251)

Co-authored-by: Manoj K M manojkm24dev@gmail.com

[ZeroIntensity]

@StanFromIreland For future reference -- it's usually better to avoid merging others' backports, unless it's for a really good reason (such as in the case of an RM). In a more practical sense, we had different commit messages on the backports (both 3.15 and 3.14 include the PR number, but the 3.13 one does not). A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!

It doesn't matter that much, but I thought I'd let you know since you're still relatively new to this 🙂

[StanFromIreland]

Hi @ZeroIntensity, sorry I was going through things labelled 'docs' and didn't take into consideration how new this was.

However, I thought the official recommendation was to not include the backport PR number? That's specifically show in the "bad" things to do in the devguide. Furthermore, I don't think we need to include the original commit message in the body, I think that unnecessarily duplicates it.

[ZeroIntensity]

Yes, again, it doesn't really matter here. It's just good practice to avoid merging random backports, which might be on hold or waiting on some other thing by the committer.

However, I thought the official recommendation was to not include the backport PR number? That's specifically show in the "bad" things to do in the devguide. Furthermore, I don't think we need to include the original commit message in the body, I think that unnecessarily duplicates it.

I didn't even know that section existed. Looking at it, I strongly disagree there:

1. Very few people currently follow that recommendation. See the 3.15 commit log, for example.
2. Omitting the backport PR adds an annoying layer of indirection. If I were bisecting a non-main branch and find a regressing commit, there's potentially some discussion in the backport (such as when we backport large changes). By hiding it, you have to sift through a PR or issue and find whatever the backport was. It's doable, just annoying.

More fundamentally, I think we have a bit of a divide between what the devguide recommends and what people (particularly core devs) actually do, since there's not really any way to enforce it. (It's a guide, not a rulebook.)