Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Use ordered merge for set operations #4196

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 4, 2022
Merged

Use ordered merge for set operations #4196

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 4, 2022

Conversation

erights
Copy link
Member

@erights erights commented Dec 21, 2021

No description provided.

@erights erights requested a review from FUDCo December 21, 2021 10:20
@erights erights self-assigned this Dec 21, 2021
@erights erights force-pushed the markm-proposed-4136-improvements branch 5 times, most recently from 5e38fca to b45c364 Compare December 24, 2021 08:33
FUDCo
FUDCo approved these changes Dec 24, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@FUDCo FUDCo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems legit.

@erights erights requested a review from FUDCo December 25, 2021 04:14
@erights erights marked this pull request as ready for review December 25, 2021 04:14
@erights
Copy link
Member Author

erights commented Dec 25, 2021

Hi @FUDCo , the ordered set operator logic is as you reviewed it. But the use by ERTP now works, which it did not in the previous Draft. It is now R4R with these additional changes, so I hit the "request review" button. Thanks.

@erights erights changed the base branch from markm-proposed-4136-improvements to markm-extract-4191-early December 25, 2021 04:33
@erights erights changed the title WIP Use ordered merge for set operations Use ordered merge for set operations Dec 25, 2021
@erights
Copy link
Member Author

erights commented Dec 25, 2021

This was stacked on #4191 which is stacked on #4210 . However, it doesn't actually depend on any of the changes from #4191, so I restacked it directly on #4210

@erights erights force-pushed the markm-extract-4191-early branch 5 times, most recently from 3899a51 to 9a58425 Compare December 28, 2021 03:36
@erights erights force-pushed the markm-extract-4191-early branch from c35d285 to 4a7cbdc Compare December 30, 2021 00:50
@erights erights force-pushed the markm-extract-4191-early branch from 4a7cbdc to b340a81 Compare January 3, 2022 21:50
Base automatically changed from markm-extract-4191-early to master January 3, 2022 22:03
@erights erights force-pushed the markm-merge-setops branch from 620ec62 to 0bf2a19 Compare January 3, 2022 22:25
FUDCo
FUDCo approved these changes Jan 3, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@FUDCo FUDCo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, OK then

@erights erights force-pushed the markm-merge-setops branch from 0bf2a19 to f3f2436 Compare January 4, 2022 01:32
@erights erights added the automerge:squash Automatically squash merge label Jan 4, 2022
@mergify mergify bot merged commit bda9206 into master Jan 4, 2022
@mergify mergify bot deleted the markm-merge-setops branch January 4, 2022 01:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@FUDCo FUDCo FUDCo approved these changes

Assignees

@erights erights

Labels
automerge:squash Automatically squash merge
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@erights @FUDCo