> On Oct 17, 2016, at 15:51, Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercur...@ringworld.org> 
> wrote:
>> 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?

...and sometime soon we'll have improved tooling that can understand queuing 
non-contiguous parts of a series.

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

Mercurial-devel mailing list

Reply via email to