On 07 Nov 2016, at 17:55 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> I think the objection to #7 is that it was intentionally posted in an
> incomplete state with the expectation that development would continue in
> the pull request. I am not sure that that is the best approach for us.
TBH I had hoped that it
On Nov 7, 2016, at 7:02PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Sterling Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:19AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 November 2016 at 08:33, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
So I have the impression that my feedback is reaching fewer vie
> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Sterling Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:19AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> On 5 November 2016 at 08:33, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> So I have the impression that my feedback is reaching fewer viewers and is
>>> thus a worse use of my time.
>>
>> I wonde
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Marko Käning wrote:
>
>> On 04 Nov 2016, at 19:00 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>>
>> Sure. I would encourage committers who want feedback to open as many PRs
>> as they want.
>>
>> (You get a PR! You get a PR! Everybody gets a PR!!!)
>
> good to know.
>
> That’s
On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:19AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On 5 November 2016 at 08:33, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> So I have the impression that my feedback is reaching fewer viewers and is
>> thus a worse use of my time.
>
> I wonder if there is a solution for that. (Something like a special
> button
Hi Larry,
On 04 Nov 2016, at 19:00 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> Sure. I would encourage committers who want feedback to open as many PRs
> as they want.
>
> (You get a PR! You get a PR! Everybody gets a PR!!!)
good to know.
That’s quite a different response than what I faced with PR #7 at fi
