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.

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

OCD #412

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 13, 2014
Merged

OCD #412

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 13, 2014

Conversation

ches
Copy link
Contributor

@ches ches commented Sep 26, 2013

You're going to hate me 😓 Compulsion got the better of me. Just threw the branch out there, cherry-picking certainly an option.

@avit
Copy link

avit commented Sep 30, 2013

I like these. Especially 96c8833, I needed that to run the tests.

@ches
Copy link
Contributor Author

ches commented Sep 30, 2013

@avit FWIW, 96c8833 has an isolated pull request since it's not controversial, at #410, although I failed to realized it's also a (smaller) dupe of another PR.

@ches
Copy link
Contributor Author

ches commented Nov 18, 2013

Just to provide some historical context as this lingers open, this wasn't just for giggles, I did most of this in the context of several other things I worked on (plus one other that I'm not even bothering to submit a PR for yet, because it's a large changeset and maintenance of this library is flagging at this point in time, four pull requests of mine open for two months with no feedback from maintainers...).

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Dec 10, 2013

Can you rebase against master and force push?

@ches
Copy link
Contributor Author

ches commented Dec 10, 2013

...aaand rebased this one too.

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Dec 10, 2013

Ok, new stuff in master that is included in your branch, rebase && push again, plz 😈

I do have a few questions about other parts of the code, will discuss then.

@ches
Copy link
Contributor Author

ches commented Dec 10, 2013

Rebased again.

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Dec 19, 2013

Um, so, forgot to discuss 'then' sorry. Looks like we can't automatically merge again. (But wait for #438 before rebasing)

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Dec 27, 2013

So sorry, rebase again?

ches added 5 commits January 9, 2014 17:18
This was doing nothing dynamic, and the eval is wastefully repeated if
there are multiple calls to `acts_as_taggable_on` with a context.

The helper for these methods is already a regular instance method not
used anywhere else, so the `tag_types.empty?` guard wasn't exactly a
huge win in saving namespace pollution.
Know an Ruby module. This stuff confuses and misguides newcomers.

http://yehudakatz.com/2009/11/12/better-ruby-idioms/
@ches
Copy link
Contributor Author

ches commented Jan 9, 2014

Alright, rebased again. dd958e4 in particular is likely to be annoying to keep rebasing, so I may lose patience, to be honest.

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Jan 10, 2014

@ches, I totally get that... reviewing

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Jan 10, 2014

Looks good. @seuros Any objections?

bf4 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2014
[Misc] Code cleanup, refactoring
@bf4 bf4 merged commit bd202f8 into mbleigh:master Jan 13, 2014
@ches
Copy link
Contributor Author

ches commented Jan 13, 2014

Thanks for the persistence 😄 I hope the changes don't cause too much grief for people rebasing other PRs, but git seemed to figure out indentation change from nuking InstanceMethods, etc. pretty well in my cases.

@bf4
Copy link
Collaborator

bf4 commented Jan 13, 2014

Yeah, you too. At some point it's better to merge something now and clean it up later than wait for perfection and cause everyone grief :)

tekniklr pushed a commit to tekniklr/acts-as-taggable-on that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2021
[Misc] Code cleanup, refactoring
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.

3 participants