Clojurians
#cloverage
<
2016-10-08
>

This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.

lvh13:10:26

@rhu So I did that and my immediate reaction was that that might be a bad idea

lvh13:10:31

because we have outstanding PRs

lvh13:10:03

so now junit xml support doesn’t merge cleanly, prelim boot support doesn’t, and neither does the for loop chunked seq thing

lvh13:10:28

any preferences moving forward? I’d like to get those in somehow, ideally without asking the contributors to do even more work

rhu13:10:41

I don't mind mopping up the merge conflicts

rhu14:10:27

Only this one is squealing about merge conflcts though: https://github.com/cloverage/cloverage/pull/127

rhu14:10:06

Presume you'll need to give me write access do that though ?

lvh15:10:02

Yeah, I’m happy to give you write access but I’m not sure how that’ll help

rhu15:10:18

thought maintainers could now edit PRs ?

lvh15:10:11

I can edit the title, but not the source branch

rhu15:10:38

the loop chunked PR will merge cleanly but will fail travis because of the formatting rules,

rhu15:10:14

Boot support will merge cleanly and travis passes

rhu15:10:39

junit support has some merge conflicts

lvh15:10:44

I mean, you could pull the branch and open a new PR

lvh15:10:59

that is what I understood the procedure to always be for GitHub

rhu15:10:26

how close do you think those PRs are to be merged into master?

rhu15:10:29

when I said give me write access, i would’ve checked out locally, fixed the conflicts then pushed to master

rhu16:10:04

but if the PRs are not quite ready, theres not point in doing that

lvh17:10:13

I think they’re good to go

lvh17:10:18

I just wanted a release I can trust

lvh17:10:28

due to the lack of releases, a lot of people are running -SNAPSHOT

lvh17:10:50

and some of these changes are benign, but the :for one might actually break something