Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Gao Kai

Sorry I forgot to reset the change-Id.

I'll abandon 22316 and resubmit the patch to 20762 asap.


On 12/06/15 04:21, Colin Dixon wrote:

It looks like you created two patches:
depends on the existing one:

If you want, I can flatten the two into 20762 and abandon 22316 or you can do that. If you're having trouble getting git to do what you want, I'm happy to try to get on a Google hangout or IRC with you to help.


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
I fixed that problem in patch set 6:

I also noted that in patch set 5 you again introduced the dependency on this commit:;a=commit;h=ac79bb7af566c127327a37c95405273489591683

I've fixed it in patch set 6.

My recommendation when amending a patch set is to start from the exact patch set. You can do that by using either "git review" (my preference) or by using the various download links on the top right of the gerrit link. That should avoid introducing false dependencies.

There's information on using git review to do this here:


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
No worries. I  just didn't want to miss anything. It appears as though you're most recent patch set didn't build because you defined the read-restconf label twice.

In general, my suggestion is to make sure the docs projects builds ("mvn clean install" from the root) and check that your docs look the way you want in the PDFs ("find . -name *.pdf" to find them).


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.


On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:
A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:


Join to automatically receive all group messages.