[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Fix error messages in website build (issue4428077)

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Fix error messages in website build (issue4428077)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 10:39:13 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: <address@hidden> To: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fix error messages in website build (issue4428077)

woah, this is confusing.

Could go back to the 2nd draft patch, yesterday's version?  That is a
very nice, self-contained patch.  I'd like to have the official review
period and get that pushed.

I have no reason to believe that the other changes are bad; I just think
that they're premature, and that we lose clarity by including them in
this commit.

You can^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hOne can very easily get the previous draft,
without losing the later work, in git.  I'm not certain how to do it
myself, though (I would begin by googling for tips), so I'm hesitant to
offer to guide you through it.  But it'll be a one- or two-line command,
that a knowledgeable person can bash out in 30 seconds or so.

OK. I'm not understanding how Rietveld works. On my machine I have 2 separate patches. The first is the one you responded LGTM to and I still have. My aim was then to do some more work to get rid of the rest of the warning, building on the previous patch. I did that, and fired it at Rietveld using git cl upload origin/master. Unexpectedly to me (since AFAICS it was brand new work) it appeared as patch 3 at I expected it to be a new review. That said, if anyone wants to review my earlier effort, can't they just review Patch 2 at ?

If we are OK with the initial patch, I can email it to someone to push, and we could then review the new patch?

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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