Skip to content

Conversation

@pkienzle
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Collaborator

@krzywon krzywon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does what it suggests it is supposed to do

@butlerpd
Copy link
Member

This seems simple and obvious and was approved some time ago. Is there a reason it is not merged?

@llimeht
Copy link
Contributor

llimeht commented Oct 21, 2025

This seems simple and obvious and was approved some time ago. Is there a reason it is not merged?

I didn't touch, as I wasn't sure how to reconcile this PR with a desire for more verbosity in #675 (to show that the process was not stalled). In the context of #679 we might want an indication of cache hits vs misses too.

@butlerpd
Copy link
Member

Thanks @llimeht. I am trying to clear things out as much as possible in preparation for the contributor camp that starts in 3 weeks, understanding that @pkienzle and @krzywon are effectively out since Oct 1 and not likely to be able to address anything before camp. I was going to put this to the attendees at tomorrow's meeting.

I'm not sure I see much of an issue? Mostly this just fixes the dollarmath and comments out a few print statements. If the answer to #675 is really these print statements (not clear to me) given they are only commented out it should be simple to uncomment them again?

I guess our options are probably to merge it or request changes and convert to draft which seems a bit much? Thoughts given the timing of the meeting tomorrow is not very Australia friendly?

@llimeht
Copy link
Contributor

llimeht commented Oct 21, 2025

@butlerpd, I say merge it - there's a substantial cost to having open PRs sitting around during the code camp. Merge conflicts, redoing work because we're stepping on each-others' toes, and then annoyance and frustration associated with. It's easy to revert part of it later if needed.

@DrPaulSharp
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @butlerpd & @llimeht, I agree that this PR should be merged for the reasons you have discussed. I'm adding it to the list for the fortnightly meeting later.

@butlerpd butlerpd merged commit d8274ef into master Oct 21, 2025
18 checks passed
@butlerpd butlerpd deleted the fix-reduce-debug-output-in-doc-build branch October 21, 2025 13:50
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.

6 participants