On 10/17/2016 10:52 PM, Kevin Bullock wrote:
On Oct 17, 2016, at 15:51, Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercur...@ringworld.org> 

On Oct 17, 2016, at 15:45, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> 

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 

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.

Yep, I've queued patch #5 of the v4 (because I picked it up when it was Patch 1 of another series (flagged V3)).

Does this confusing statement lift your confusion?

Pierre-Yves David
Mercurial-devel mailing list

Reply via email to