Re: [ISSUE] Remove/replace Simple_closure smob type

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> On 25.09.2015 21:36, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> Issue 4618 has been updated.
>>>
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> That's awkward, sorry I should have made this quite more explicit: this
>> was supposed to be a new issue.  But it needs the patch from issue 4618
>> to work, so that patch was rolled into the Rietveld review as well in
>> order to allow for testing this patch.
>>
>
> What would the alternative be? Closing 4618 as Invalid

No. 4618 was perfectly fine.  This is a new issue.  The only reason it
also contains the patch for 4618 is so that it does not have to wait for
4618 to move into master before it can even be tested.

Basically this patch and issue has no relation whatsoever to issue 4618
except that it happens to touch the same code (and thus, strictly
speaking, would want a new Rietveld upload and test once 4618 has made
it into master.  But since the relation is trivial, we tend to gloss
over that).

> and opening a new one which does contain the code in question for
> 4618? I found it more sensible that way, but if there is a problem
> with this now, I can redo it.

I'd just keep these as separate issues.  Basically edit 4618 to look as
before, and add a new one.  The only one who really needs to bother with
the connection is me when somebody makes comments on Rietveld regarding
the common changes: in that case I have to make sure to apply/direct
them to the correct patch.

-- 
David Kastrup