TMI: Pull requests
Jan. 23rd, 2013 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timWe're down to ten pending pull requests, which is the lowest it's been in a while!
It's hard to know what to write today, since it seems like I spent most of the day merging pull requests. Or trying to. Merging a pull request: if it looks OK from reading it on github, and it merges cleanly, I just click merge. If I'm worried, I pull it as a new branch and run the testsuite on my machine. Several times today, a test failed, which means someone didn't run the full testsuite (understandable since it can take an hour...) or else there was a conflict between their code and another recent change. I decided today I really wanted to clear out pull requests, so I would fix things myself instead of asking the submitter to fix the problem and submit a new pull request. I am particularly proud of merging this library fix, for which I had to read the comments several times just to figure out what was needed. (I blame sleep deprivation, not the commenters.)
Also, I worked a little bit on this bug relating to our syntactic sugar for for loops. The syntactic sugar is very nice, but in this case it leads to a confusing error message that takes some thought as to how to get straight (due to the baroqueness of our for construct).
It's hard to know what to write today, since it seems like I spent most of the day merging pull requests. Or trying to. Merging a pull request: if it looks OK from reading it on github, and it merges cleanly, I just click merge. If I'm worried, I pull it as a new branch and run the testsuite on my machine. Several times today, a test failed, which means someone didn't run the full testsuite (understandable since it can take an hour...) or else there was a conflict between their code and another recent change. I decided today I really wanted to clear out pull requests, so I would fix things myself instead of asking the submitter to fix the problem and submit a new pull request. I am particularly proud of merging this library fix, for which I had to read the comments several times just to figure out what was needed. (I blame sleep deprivation, not the commenters.)
Also, I worked a little bit on this bug relating to our syntactic sugar for for loops. The syntactic sugar is very nice, but in this case it leads to a confusing error message that takes some thought as to how to get straight (due to the baroqueness of our for construct).