Having put it this way, I agree with you guys ;-) Thanks,
-Alberto On 1/8/19 18:02, Blake Bender wrote: > I agree with Jake on this one. From a bookkeeping perspective, what I'd > like to see in the history is a single commit that fixes all the LGTM > issues, and your fix for this bug in a separate commit. I have a copy of > your .yml changes on my "fix LGTM" branch already, please back that change > out and we can merge your PR without LGTM passing. > > Thanks, > > Blake > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:55 AM Alberto Gomez <alberto.go...@est.tech> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would not back out the LGTM changes added in the PR as they are >> necessary. >> >> - Alberto >> >> On 31/7/19 23:46, Jacob Barrett wrote: >>> I would say for this PR, back out the LGTM changes and just move forward >> ignoring the LGTM results. >>
