Ready for checkin

[Daniele Procida]

"Ready For Check-in" appears in the docs once; "Ready for Checkin" appears five times, and on Trac.

Can we change it universally to "Ready for check-in"? Or better "Ready for core team review"?

What's wrong with "checkin":

* it's incorrect
* I've more than once read it and imagined it must be a mispelling of "checking"
* it looks like it might be the name of a town in the Balkans

But also it's not immediately obvious what "checkin" (or indeed "check-in") means; it sounds like it might involve formally accepting something into the system, and so I'd actually prefer something like "Ready for core team review".

Daniele

[Tim Graham]

+1 to "check-in"

[Greg Chapple]

Would "Ready for merge" not be a more appropriate term? To me, check-in is a term I would associate with SVN.

- Greg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/8dad3051-e4f7-4b3e-9078-2ce45b4f1887%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Shai Berger]

On Monday 16 June 2014 20:09:13 Greg Chapple wrote:
> Would "Ready for merge" not be a more appropriate term? To me, check-in is
> a term I would associate with SVN.
>

Yes, except that RFM sounds more like "Read Forgotten Manual" :)

Shai.

[Marc Tamlyn]

If check in is SVN how about RFC meaning ready for commit?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/201406162019.37543.shai%40platonix.com.

[Russell Keith-Magee]

+1 to Ready For Commit. 

Russ %-)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMwjO1Ff%2B%3DKnHG%3D%2BQo01VMhhSHOY882fjTVVVa3mngg4NXg%3DOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniele Procida]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014, Greg Chapple <gregch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Would "Ready for merge" not be a more appropriate term?

Well no - because it isn't ready for merge. It may well be far from ready. Ironically "ready for checking" is closer to the intended meaning.

Daniele

[Josh Smeaton]

I see what you're saying Daniele, I had to ask about the terminology only a couple of weeks ago. Hopefully I can provide some clarity.

Ready For Check-in means that someone other than the author has reviewed the patch and believes it is ready to be merged. However, the patch must also be reviewed by a core team member before it can be merged. So really, you need context for the Ready For Check-in status. If a core contributor marked it as such, it really is ready to be merged. Otherwise, it still needs reviewing.

If a core contributor believes a patch can be merged though, they could just push the big green button. I *think* the status is only really useful for signalling to the core team that the patch should be reviewed. Even though the name is somewhat confusing, I don't think there is a need to change it. The person changing the status to RFC believes the patch is ready, but a core member can change it back after review. The name should be consistent though.

Josh

[Robert Grant]

Any reason not to rename it to "Ready for merge"? Might as well make it match its explanation; then you don't need the explanation :)