Hi Christopher, Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes:
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Guillaume Le Vaillant <g...@posteo.net> writes: >> >>> Lars-Dominik Braun <l...@6xq.net> skribis: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team >>>> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there >>>> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and >>>> go ahead with merging haskell-team? >>>> >>>> Lars >>> >>> Hi. >>> The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged. >> >> I think it's fine to merge these first; perhaps the core-updates merge >> request should be removed if it was preposterous (usually we issue the >> merge request when we are confident the branch is ready to me merged). > > Can you clarify what you mean by preposterous? > > While the guidance did previously say to raise an issue when you wanted > to merge the branch, it's now changed to when you create the branch in > an attempt to avoid this of situation of long running stateful branches > in the future. OK, sorry, I somehow had forgotten/missed that. Some branches might require more work post merge-request than was expected; it's hard to say without trying it first. > I fail to see how merging core-updates is going to get easier if we > wait. It's not. But while things are still being worked on, if other branches are done and ready, they shouldn't be in held in limbo. -- Thanks, Maxim
