> On Oct 17, 2016, at 15:45, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> 
> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 10:41 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 08:55 PM, Kevin Bullock wrote:
>>> Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case I would've said to
>>> resend just 8-11, but it's fine that you resent them as one chunk.
>> For the record, I would have preferred that part of the series to not be
>> sent again as a V4. The V2 was still in review and no change had been
>> requested to it. Having it resent is increasing list traffic, patch
>> tracking work and confusion on my side for no visible benefit.
>> Kevin, any reason why you requested that ?
> Ha, I just connected the dots. A V4 was sent to contains the update to the 
> last patch. I got confused because that patch was in my mind independent and 
> not included in that series at all. Sorry for the confusion and associated 
> grumpyness.

Yeah, I was just trying to establish positively what part of the series was 
still active. Once part of a series is queued and another part is sliced off as 
a separate patch, I and our review tooling are both likely to drop the 
remainder on the floor (whether that's the intent or not).

As I understand it now, you've queued #5 out of v4 and the rest of v4 is still 
under review. Is that right?

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock

Mercurial-devel mailing list

Reply via email to