[PATCH v3] update: enable copy tracing for backwards and non-linear updates
Kevin Bullock
kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org
Mon Oct 17 16:52:19 EDT 2016
> On Oct 17, 2016, at 15:51, Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 17, 2016, at 15:45, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at 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
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list