On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:59 AM, David Edmundson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 9 Oct 2017 10:59, "Marco Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:01 PM, David Edmundson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Martin, >> >> don't go out of your way to get offended, most of the criticisms (of which >> certainly 1 part is valid) are directed at a few certain people in Plasma. >> Myself being one; Ben's kindly going out of his way to not publicly name >> names. > > yet.. being that vague now i'm not sure what the exact issues are (and > if i caused some of them, which i fear.. but i don't know) > all i care at the moment is just to get the issues fixed > > -- > Marco Martin > > > On communication problems.
Hi David, > > So we had Marco not see your comment on a Kirigami review, but I got a > similar situation today. It's pretty easy to see why we miss stuff. > > The email I got yesterday literally has just the following 2 lines. > >>bcooksley reopened this revision. >>This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Interesting. There should have been a comment by me alongside this, or in an email from Phabricator just before it? (All emails from Phabricator in regards to a single task/review/etc should be threaded by your mail client) > > It's at best confusing. It doesn't exactly look like a problem. > > (Then that again for another email, and then the actual comment 3 emails > later...) > > Turning this into useful feedback, when we have an issue with a commit > that's committed, I think it'd better to not bump the review, but comment on > the commit in diphusion so it starts a new thread. It should be one less > lookup from the sysadmin side too. That works for me. > > David Cheers, Ben
