RepertoireGroup development for v2.0 #748
Conversation
Mostly so I can create a pull request...
|
Yeah nevermind it SAYS that, sorry... |
scharch
changed the title
|
@schristley this PR was intended to capture all of the changes we wanted to make for RepertoireGroup for the v2.0 release. Although there was only one minor issue listed so far, my intention with this was to contain all of the discussions around what we wanted to do with So I don't think it should have been merged... 8-) |
|
Also, if you took my comment here at face value, that was a mistake 8-) I should have used a tongue-in-cheek emoticon as I definitely didn't mean to say that that issue was really done!!! I think we have more to discuss. Sorry for the confusion... 8-) |
|
oops, sorry! The branch is still there so if any changes are committed, it will re-open the PR |
|
@schristley it didn't reopen the PR... |
|
Hmm, I tried as well and it didn't work... |
|
@scharch @bcorrie Sorry, my mistake, a merged PR cannot be re-opened, that's for provenance reasons. I was confusing it with a closed PR (but which was not merged). If you want, I can revert those changes, and move into a new PR? and/or just create a new PR for more stuff? I do have some comments to make about #578 but I'm still catching up after my trip... |
|
I would suggest just creating a new PR... |
|
and leave it as draft to deter any itchy merge fingers... |
In the descriptions of each field, it uses the wording "repertoire collection" not "repertoire group". Should this object be called
RepertoireCollectioncloses #578