Conversation
|
Done. |
|
That was quite straightforward actually, since github basically gives you all of the necessary instructions. |
|
Somehow I was expecting github to provide a button that would automatically merge the changeset, but instead it provides instructions with a series of git commands. Anyway, this change is merged now. |
|
It's easy, sure. But it also opens exactly an issue I've been concerned about.. areas of responsibility. Changes to druntime need appropriate discussion and some checks and balances before being merged in. This is something that Sean and I have been discussing in email and it wasn't clear that it was the right thing to do. |
|
Well, you wanted someone to merge it in, so I did. It would make sense though to have an appropriate process for deciding whether a pull request gets merged in - especially if patches start coming in that way. Typically, I'd expect a pull request to come from someone who doesn't have write access to the repository. In which case, it becomes primarily a question of how we deal with proposed patches to druntime. |
|
If I'd wanted it checked in without consideration, I could have just pushed it in directly. :) But, I admit I didn't make it at all clear in my pull request what the status of that code was. Let's take this out of this pull request over to the mailing list for further discussion. |
|
Well, then I misunderstood. Sorry. |
regression test for Issue 10701
missing executeArgs for benchmarks
I checked in to my fork the pthread changes to the posix types.d file that Sean and I talked about over email. This is partially to exercise the github pull request mechanism to see how it works. :)