Attention is currently required from: Arthur Heymans, Nico Huber, Jonathan Zhang, Johnny Lin, David Hendricks, Christian Walter, Stefan Reinauer, Deomid "rojer" Ryabkov, Tim Chu.

Patch set 1:Code-Review +2

View Change

1 comment:

• Patchset:

  • Patch Set #1:

    > > The patch was reviewed and tested by multiple parties - you were one of them! Your comments didn […]

    Hi David,

    I think there is a bit of cross talking here.

    David => Nico is correct that we should revert and re-land with it fixed correctly. Obviously the breakage wasn't intentional and communication was got lost there with Nico's unanswered question. Let's just let the revert go though please, please remember commits are just hashes and are free we don't need to fight over this and we can re-land this once you addressed all the comments in a follow up patch that fixes the concerns. 😊

    Nico => It is sufficient to say revert-first upon breakage, you are absolutely right there. Just no need to threaten forkage whenever someone makes a mistake, I would imagine David does care about your concern already. Your technical arguments are sufficient on their own merit they just need to be understood by the reader. I think what happened here is that you can see something obvious to you but not obvious to David. Let's be patient and care about one another as humans first.

To view, visit change 57589. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.