FWIW, I pushed the fix yesterday afternoon, so if you rebase to pick it up LGTM will pass. Thanks for your patience.
Blake On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:36 AM Alberto Gomez <alberto.go...@est.tech> wrote: > 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. > >> >
