> Your patches happen to modify code maintained by me. From my
> perspective the value of the changes made by them is marginal.
Thanks for another bit of interesting information.
> Nevertheless, I might take them if you made my life somewhat easier,
I am also looking for further approaches to
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:10 PM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>> Anyway, if there's something I don't like in particular, I'll let you know.
>
> Thanks for your general interest.
>
> I hope that occasional disagreements can be resolved in constructive ways.
>
>
>> However, it's a pain to review 20 patc
> Anyway, if there's something I don't like in particular, I'll let you know.
Thanks for your general interest.
I hope that occasional disagreements can be resolved in constructive ways.
> However, it's a pain to review 20 patches if you could review 4 instead.
Are there any more possibilities
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:28 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>> I'd prefer this to be combined into fewer patches
>> that each will address several issues of one type,
>
> I understand your concern a bit in principle.
>
>
>> ie. put all label renames into one patch,
>
> Are any of my update suggestion
> I'd prefer this to be combined into fewer patches
> that each will address several issues of one type,
I understand your concern a bit in principle.
> ie. put all label renames into one patch,
Are any of my update suggestions controversial here?
> all size determination improvements into an
5 matches
Mail list logo
