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 On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 12:54:44 UTC+10, Daniele Procida wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014, Greg Chapple <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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 are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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/f1aee68c-84c8-465f-b74a-c0f332bc473d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
