On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:31:17PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I think you're asserting far too broad a policy for the CF, and in any case > there has been no discussion of what exactly is a large patch. I don't see > any great need to defer patch 3. It is substantial although not what I would > class as large, but it also has relatively low impact, ISTM.
I am fine with any conclusion. As the patch has rotten a bit, I switched it from "Ready for committer" to "Needs Review" by the way. That seems more appropriate as the thing has rotten a bit. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
