On 2014/06/02 09:11:54, fwereade wrote: > LGTM, I'm approving this despite the unnecessary lines in the test. A followup > that just dropped those would be very much appreciated.
> https://codereview.appspot.com/101810046/diff/20001/charm/meta_test.go > File charm/meta_test.go (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/101810046/diff/20001/charm/meta_test.go#newcode407 > charm/meta_test.go:407: empty_input.Requires = nil > Aren't these nil already?
LGTM Altough for the records I would appreciate a more detailed description for the merge proposal.
https://codereview.appspot.com/101810046/
« Back to merge proposal
On 2014/06/02 09:11:54, fwereade wrote:
> LGTM, I'm approving this despite the unnecessary lines in the test. A
followup
> that just dropped those would be very much appreciated.
> https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/101810046/ diff/20001/ charm/meta_ test.go
> File charm/meta_test.go (right):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/101810046/ diff/20001/ charm/meta_ test.go# newcode407 test.go: 407: empty_input. Requires = nil
> charm/meta_
> Aren't these nil already?
LGTM Altough for the records I would appreciate a more detailed
description for the
merge proposal.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/101810046/