Skip to content

Conversation

@Hexstream
Copy link
Contributor

As requested in #663.

(I hope closing the issue from the commit message (effective at merge time) is the appropriate thing to do...)

@Hexstream
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hum. I'm a bit confused. I didn't mean to create a new issue along with the pull request, but I'm not sure if it was possible to create a pull request without the issue either. Sorry if this was avoidable.

[edit: I now figure that since there already was an issue for the change, which I was referencing (and closing) from the commit message, there was probably no need in creating an actual pull request, although I'm not sure if having a "native" pull request gives you significant workflow advantages or not. For a trivial change like this, I'd guess probably not.

If I could go back in time, I'd just do the referencing-from-the-commit thing, as it's less disruptive than having 2 separate issues. Lesson learned... Again, sorry for the noise.]

[edit2: Ok, re-reading #663 you did specifically ask for a pull request, so it's safe to assume that's what you actually wanted. Sorry, it's 2AM and I'm exhausted from a wacky sleep pattern. 😵]

quicklisp added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 8, 2014
Update HexstreamSoft tarball locations (to Amazon S3).
@quicklisp quicklisp merged commit f683e54 into quicklisp:master Apr 8, 2014
html pushed a commit to html/quicklisp-projects that referenced this pull request May 25, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants