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 :)
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 06:14:24 UTC+2, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I see what you're saying Daniele, I had to ask about the terminology only
> a couple of weeks ago
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.
;
>> "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"?
>>
>&g
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 c
"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 inc
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> And now for something completely different: what is the current view
> of PEP-8 regarding line lengths? It seems lines longer than 80
> characters have been checked in somewhat regularly. How long lines are
> OK, then?
Yes, long line leng
On Jan 31, 1:55 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> > I am commonly facing this problem: I review a ticket in Trac. I review
> > the patch and make minor changes to the patch. Now, am I allowed to
> > check the patch as ready for checkin? My view is
Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I am commonly facing this problem: I review a ticket in Trac. I review
> the patch and make minor changes to the patch. Now, am I allowed to
> check the patch as ready for checkin? My view is that yes, as long as
> the changes are really minor (like comment
I am commonly facing this problem: I review a ticket in Trac. I review
the patch and make minor changes to the patch. Now, am I allowed to
check the patch as ready for checkin? My view is that yes, as long as
the changes are really minor (like comment cleanup).
If I do larger changes, it seems
wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 04:21 -0700, Sebastian wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> > the ticket "SlugField format not enforced" is fixed, closed an "ready
> >> > for checkin" since two years. What can I do?
>
> >> It is '
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 07:44 -0700, Sebastian wrote:
> Hello,
> I investigated a bit further, it was commited with r8477
> http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/8477
>
> But somewhere it got lost. In the current definition for SlugField I
> can only find a validation for max_length:
> http://code
gt; Sebastian
>
> On 12 Okt., 13:34, Luke Plant wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 04:21 -0700, Sebastian wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > the ticket "SlugField format not enforced" is fixed, closed an "ready
>> > for checkin" since two years. Wh
/__init__.py#L1000
Sebastian
On 12 Okt., 13:34, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 04:21 -0700, Sebastian wrote:
> > Hello,
> > the ticket "SlugField format not enforced" is fixed, closed an "ready
> > for checkin" since two years. What can I do?
&
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 04:21 -0700, Sebastian wrote:
> Hello,
> the ticket "SlugField format not enforced" is fixed, closed an "ready
> for checkin" since two years. What can I do?
It is 'closed: fixed', which means the fix entered to the code base -
two y
Hello,
the ticket "SlugField format not enforced" is fixed, closed an "ready
for checkin" since two years. What can I do?
Regards, Sebastian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to th
I was today momentarily caught out by the missing documentation for
formfield_for_manytomany, and found #11882 [1] which has a patch for
this very issue and was marked "Ready for checkin" last year. It's a
shame it missed 1.2 Anyone care to give it a push?
[1] http://code.djangopro
One of the desired but lacking a champion features for 1.1 ([ORM-09],
#3182) has been updated to work with r9844 with tests and docs, and
improved as per the last comments on the ticket.
I think this one is ready to go in, but I didn't want to set the
ticket "ready for checkin"
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Guettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who can set "ready for checkin"? You know the answer: Ticket triagers
>
> But who are they? I have some tickets which are only small changes incl.
> unittest.
Generally speaking, it should b
Who can set "ready for checkin"? You know the answer: Ticket triagers
But who are they? I have some tickets which are only small changes incl.
unittest.
Most of them wait in the state "Accepted":
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6160 Escaping of valid
23 matches
Mail list logo
