David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree completely with you while I think we should at least wait for >> a consensus _before_ commit. > > Sure. In this case, I think Jim was assuming this was a relatively > trivial fix and everyone was on the same page for it.
Actually, it didn't strike me as a trivial fix at all. As for why I checked it in, I interpret this from Otavio, as an ACK, > All this looks good but I'd like to ask if you might try to write a especially, when the "but" part merely requests an *additional* test with what seems like a "would be nice", rather than "is required for ACK" condition. ... > I may be missing something, but was there a problem with you writing the > test case if Jim had submitted the patch (forget for the moment that the > commit came before patch review on the mailing list....assume that > happened)? The commit came *before* the ack, but that was solely into my local repository, and even on a branch. The push to the public repository came *after* what I interpreted (above) as an ACK. _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
