On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:17:42PM +0100, Finucane, Stephen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:46:30PM +0000, Finucane, Stephen wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > > > First pull request (request-pull style, that is). Hope I've done > > > everything correctly :S This PR includes two fixes and the code enable > > > the check API. It's got positive reviews first time round and I > > > haven't heard any complaints for this revision so we're good to go. > > > > This conflicts with the pull request I sent two weeks ago, I'm afraid. > > There didn't seem to be any movement on that pull request so I figured I > should push on. However, your series is there longer and therefore takes > priority: > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/2015-October/001802.html > > I'll get that series merged first then rework this PR. > > Hope this is OK?
You are sending a pull request with unreviewed patches that introduce db schema changes and new APIs. I don't think we should do that. It's quite cheeky to present the work as ok because the last round didn't get any replies (but wasn't addressing the concerns either). The elephant in the room is that the proposed db schema cannot handle the use case I want to cover, while my modification still handles the policy you'd like. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
