emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#23945: closed (25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus C


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#23945: closed (25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:57:02 +0000

Your message dated Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:55:53 -0400
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in 
scratch/gnus-cloud
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #23945,
regarding 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
23945: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23945
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:05:55 -0400
I've published the proposed changes to the Gnus Cloud code in the branch
`scratch/gnus-cloud' and would like to request a code review. It's a
single commit which I've tested over the last 2 weeks with the help of
other Gnus users.

I'll add documentation if the code is acceptable.

Thank you
Ted



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:55:53 -0400 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:36:12 -0400 Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> wrote: 

NP> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Let me know, based on the docs, what the commit message should say. I
>> can't think of a good summary, since the work is really widespread in
>> order to make this package useful.

NP> Maybe something like "Bring gnus-cloud.el into working order", I
NP> gather from that thread that it was broken before, right? That's still
NP> not very descriptive but it looks like there's just a lot of little
NP> changes that aren't really tied together. Perhaps it would be better
NP> broken up into more commits (though that's probably not worth the
NP> trouble at this point).

All right... I squashed with the message you suggested. It's pushed so
I'll call this review done.

Ted


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]