Am 17.02.2016 um 17:47 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
>> Waiting for a patch like that to pass before review is pointless if
>> there is going to be a reluctance or even refusal to allow it to make
>> it to master in the end.
>>
>> However, is there a particular reason for this question?
>
> No, just a
On 17.02.2016 09:42, James Lowe wrote:
On 16/02/16 21:34, Simon Albrecht wrote:
Hello,
actually it would make sense to only start Rietveld review _after_
testing, i.e. when the tracker issue is set to Patch:review –
wouldn’t it?
Full make doc errors are always forgivable, as are unexpected
Simon,
On 16/02/16 21:34, Simon Albrecht wrote:
Hello,
actually it would make sense to only start Rietveld review _after_
testing, i.e. when the tracker issue is set to Patch:review – wouldn’t it?
Full make doc errors are always forgivable, as are unexpected reg test
diffs, but I do get irk
Hello,
actually it would make sense to only start Rietveld review _after_
testing, i.e. when the tracker issue is set to Patch:review – wouldn’t it?
Best, Simon
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis
