[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: regular patchy staging

From: James
Subject: Re: regular patchy staging
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:28:00 +0000


2012/3/3 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, James <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts.
> Have you read
> ?


>> Graham&David, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more
>> user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these
>> questions wouldn't have been asked.
> Have you read
> ?
> Janek, tell me exactly which step in that process is unclear.
> Making vague claims of "it should be more user-friendly" does not
> help.

I guess in my case it just wasn't clear to me if we can run one
without the other 'all the time' (i.e. as I have now found out what
Phil does), and that the two scripts were not dependent (i.e. I can
only run one when the other has run or I should run the other when the
other has run). Phil and David have just made that more clearer to me.

Also should I be running both or would it better to just run one and
(for instance) let someone else 'merge'.

That was all.


reply via email to

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