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 review
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014, Greg Chapple 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
--
You received this message because you a
+1 to Ready For Commit.
Russ %-)
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
> If check in is SVN how about RFC meaning ready for commit?
> 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 w
If check in is SVN how about RFC meaning ready for commit?
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.
Would "Ready for merge" not be a more appropriate term? To me, check-in is
a term I would associate with SVN.
- Greg
On 16 Jun 2014 18:06, "Tim Graham" wrote:
> +1 to "check-in"
>
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:08:43 PM UTC-4, Daniele Procida wrote:
>>
>> "Ready For Check-in" appears in the docs
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
+1 to "check-in"
On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:08:43 PM UTC-4, Daniele Procida wrote:
>
> "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"?
>
>
"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
Hi Renato,
Sorry for being a little late to this party.
On Sunday 01 June 2014 17:36:43 Renato Oliveira wrote:
>
> Yeah, i'm aware of this, and sorry for not being explicit. The goal of this
> improvement is to point to many places. For exampe, if I have a project
> with, bootstrap, jquery and a
On 14-06-14 02:52, Tim Graham wrote:
11.1 - Aug 2007 - Aug 2012 - Aug 2015
10.2 - Jul 2005 - Jul 2010 - Jul 2013
To provide an additional data point: I checked with a colleague. We do a
lot of business with governmental organizations in the Netherlands
(mainly water boards). Most of them are
There will be a need for some gradiented support of Psql with
contrib.postgres. I think a sensible CI setup would be to run the full test
suite against 9.4 and the contrib.postgres test suite only against 9.1-9.3.
That would be my preferred compromise.
Marc
On 16 Jun 2014 01:24, "Russell Keith-Mag
11 matches
Mail list logo
