Re: Fix error messages in website build (issue4428077)

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; 
<address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fix error messages in website build (issue4428077)


> woah, this is confusing.
>
> Could go back to the 2nd draft patch, yesterday's version?  That is a
> very nice, self-contained patch.  I'd like to have the official review
> period and get that pushed.
>
> I have no reason to believe that the other changes are bad; I just think
> that they're premature, and that we lose clarity by including them in
> this commit.
>
> You can^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hOne can very easily get the previous draft,
> without losing the later work, in git.  I'm not certain how to do it
> myself, though (I would begin by googling for tips), so I'm hesitant to
> offer to guide you through it.  But it'll be a one- or two-line command,
> that a knowledgeable person can bash out in 30 seconds or so.
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4428077/


OK.  I'm not understanding how Rietveld works.  On my machine I have 2 
separate patches.  The first is the one you responded LGTM to and I still 
have.  My aim was then to do some more work to get rid of the rest of the 
warning, building on the previous patch.  I did that, and fired it at 
Rietveld using git cl upload origin/master.  Unexpectedly to me (since 
AFAICS it was brand new work) it appeared as patch 3 at 
http://codereview.appspot.com/4428077/.  I expected it to be a new review. 
That said, if anyone wants to review my earlier effort, can't they just 
review Patch 2 at http://codereview.appspot.com/4428077/ ?

If we are OK with the initial patch, I can email it to someone to push, and 
we could then review the new patch?

--
Phil Holmes