RE: http://codereview.appspot.com/3667041

[James Lowe]

Carl,

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Sorensen [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: 04 February 2011 17:58
To: James Lowe; address@hidden
Subject: Re: http://codereview.appspot.com/3667041
Importance: Low

> No, your edits of his work will be *your* work.

Well if it's complicated I really don't mind not taking credit for  ... oh hang 
on ... you need someone to blame :) I see!

> We're not ready to push the patch in its current state.  By the time it's 
> ready to be pushed it will be a mix of your work and his work.

> Maybe the right thing to do is keep it in two separate patches, so that when 
> it's approved we'll push two patches -- one that is the current state of the 
> patch (your starting point) and another that is the final state of the patch. 

OK. I was going to do it in smaller sections as per Graham's suggestion (it 
also keeps the re-reading down for everyone else) however I am finding that 
this is going to be tricky because there are cross references in the new edits 
that do not exist in the original file; if I only do 'some' of it then I get 
compile errors with missing 'nodes'.

So it looks like I'll be submitting a big patch again, but with my edits. I'll 
go through the codereview comments and make any additional edits from the 
group's suggestions on the original Rietveld issue so we can 'start' again with 
the review without having to repeat, or wonder if I missed something that was 
previously requested/noted.

James