Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> There may be some other changes that this series depends on that I >> may have missed that caused this breakage. Can you take a look? > > I'm such a bad maintainer and I don't take constructive criticism well > why would you expect me to take a look? Because this was not about maintainership, but was a simple and straight-forward breakage report [*1*]. There was no criticism involved, constructive or otherwise. In other words, I knew that you are capable enough to track down a bug in the code you wrote recently that made it violate the expectation you defined in your own tests. There was no room for differences of opinions to come into play, as it was just between you and your own code. Why would I expect otherwise? Do you want to make it a separate follow-up patch with a log message that explains why it now uses LookupError (not ManifestLookupError), or do you want to reroll the original by squashing it? I am guessing that the reason is because in older versions they used LookupError but in recent versions ManifestLookupError which is a subclass is thrown instead, and catching the former would cover both cases, so if I were to queue it as a separate [PATCH 5/4] fixup, that is how I would explain that change. [Footnote] *1* .... and a very bad one at that, missing any useful details; I apologize and blame lack of time for its lousiness. Thanks for working with very little useful information and fixing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html