On 2020/01/24 15:26:06, dak wrote: > On 2020/01/24 13:57:33, Dan Eble wrote: > > On 2020/01/24 13:45:50, dak wrote: > > > Hoo yes. That kind of extensive change is going to hurt anyway given the > > > current burst activity level. It will likely suck either way. Do you have > > > particular dependencies yourself, Dan? > > > > I have a bunch of private branches (contexts, rehearsal marks, warning > clean-up) > > that I would like to get on with rebasing. Normally, once I'm pretty sure > that > > a change of mine will be pushed, I'll just rebase to it locally, but with this > > one, I don't want to start until it's in master. > > > > If you want help handling Han-Wen's patches tomorrow, you can delegate some to > > me. > > Well, I should be able to handle them well enough. It would be preferable if > Han-Wen would provide Git-formatted patches (Rietveld is missing out on commit > messages unless you consider scooping them up from the description as such, and > while I would make sure that issue numbers are in the title lines, I think > future rebases/merges at least for Han-Wen himself would work better if I work > from original commits rather than original diffs). And then it makes little > sense distributing those patches to more than one person.
What I meant to say: I guess I should be able to handle those comparatively obvious merge conflicts. https://codereview.appspot.com/579240043/
