Rubocop: Stevenson #4951

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 26, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@pathawks
Member

pathawks commented May 26, 2016

@pathawks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pathawks

pathawks May 26, 2016

Member

I wish now I would have combined several of these little one-offs into a larger PR.
I guess I will be chasing my merge-conflict tail for a while 🐩

Member

pathawks commented May 26, 2016

I wish now I would have combined several of these little one-offs into a larger PR.
I guess I will be chasing my merge-conflict tail for a while 🐩

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr May 26, 2016

Member

@pathawks The merge conflicts are usually just in the .rubocop.yml file, eh? From the perspective of a maintainer, smaller PR's are waaaaayyyy easier to review and determine to be good for merge. Otherwise it can take ages to review and to merge because of any nit-picky things. Sorry for all the rebases, and thanks for making (perhaps inadvertently) my life a lot easier!

@jekyllbot: merge +dev

Member

parkr commented May 26, 2016

@pathawks The merge conflicts are usually just in the .rubocop.yml file, eh? From the perspective of a maintainer, smaller PR's are waaaaayyyy easier to review and determine to be good for merge. Otherwise it can take ages to review and to merge because of any nit-picky things. Sorry for all the rebases, and thanks for making (perhaps inadvertently) my life a lot easier!

@jekyllbot: merge +dev

@jekyllbot jekyllbot merged commit f271b8b into jekyll:master May 26, 2016

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

jekyllbot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 26, 2016

@pathawks pathawks deleted the pathawks:rubocop/stevenson branch May 26, 2016

@pathawks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pathawks

pathawks May 26, 2016

Member

From the perspective of a maintainer, smaller PR's are waaaaayyyy easier to review and determine to be good for merge.

That was my thinking. It’s always frusturating to see one small complaint holding back the rest of a big PR.

Thanks for all you do, @parkr. You and @envygeeks have taught me a bunch 👍

Member

pathawks commented May 26, 2016

From the perspective of a maintainer, smaller PR's are waaaaayyyy easier to review and determine to be good for merge.

That was my thinking. It’s always frusturating to see one small complaint holding back the rest of a big PR.

Thanks for all you do, @parkr. You and @envygeeks have taught me a bunch 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment