On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 04:39:20PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 6/15/18, Chad Perrin <c...@apotheon.net> wrote: > > > > This would not technically be a "pull request". It would be a "merge > > request". > > Good point. It should not be called "pull-request" as pulling does > not come into play. > > On the other hand, it is not necessary a request to merge. Often a > merge is implied, but the reviewer instead might prefer to accept the > changes but leave them on a branch. In that case it might be called > "push-request". Once the branch gets pushed, then merging can come > later.
You make a good point about the intention not necessarily being a merge per se. Of all the suggestions I've seen so far, I think the best so far are: * contribute - describes the sender's intention very generally * push-request - matches format of "pull request" * submit - describes the sender's action very specifically The downside of push-request, of course, is that it imperfectly describes what is going on. The push has already been accomplished at that point, though it was pushed to a sort of "pending" status. I submit that all three of these, for various reasons, have sufficient merit for this purpose, and I propose that bikeshedding the name be tabled in favor of one of these as a "working title" for the feature, with the proviso that it may be changed at some point before there is a working/testable, presumably-final-form feature in development. YMMV, as always. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
