[MINOR][GRAPHX][3.0] Correct typos in the sub-modules: graphx, external, and examples

[jsoref]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR intends to fix typos in the sub-modules: graphx, external, and examples.
Split per @holdenk #30323 (comment)

NOTE: The misspellings have been reported at jsoref@706a726#commitcomment-44064356

Backport of #30326

Why are the changes needed?

Misspelled words make it harder to read / understand content.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

No testing was performed

[maropu]

ok to test

[SparkQA]

Test build #130951 has finished for PR 30342 at commit 64effa1.

• This patch fails build dependency tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35558/

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35558/

[maropu]

retest this please

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35603/

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test status success
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35603/

[SparkQA]

Test build #130997 has finished for PR 30342 at commit 64effa1.

• This patch fails Spark unit tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[maropu]

retest this please

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35645/

[SparkQA]

Test build #131039 has finished for PR 30342 at commit 64effa1.

• This patch fails due to an unknown error code, -9.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test status success
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35645/

[srowen]

@maropu do you really think we need to backport? that is generally only for bug fixes. It's not a huge deal either way but not sure we should do that in general.

[jsoref]

fwiw, the argument in favor of backporting is that it'll make future backports easier, otherwise any fixes past this point (on master) will be harder to backport (because of the changes made by this work on master).

I'm not arguing in favor/opposed (I have no opinion).

[maropu]

@maropu do you really think we need to backport? that is generally only for bug fixes. It's not a huge deal either way but not sure we should do that in general.

Ah, I see. I thought its better to fix the user-facing typo, so I requested to backport it. But, I don't have a strong feeling on it. We don't need it in branch-3.0, @srowen ? if not, we need to revert it in branch-2.4.

[srowen]

Oh I see, already in 2.4. OK go ahead and merge it rather than revert. I don't feel strongly either, just know we don't generally backport anything like this as a rule.

[maropu]

ok~, thanks for the check, @srowen

[maropu]

retest this please

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35787/

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/35787/

[SparkQA]

Test build #131185 has finished for PR 30342 at commit 64effa1.

• This patch passes all tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[maropu]

Thanks! Merged to branch-3.0.