On 17 February 2015 at 13:13, Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/14/2015 09:36 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> In the pull request code (both controllers and templates) I find the >> variable names non-intuitive and it is therefore harder to make >> changes. > > > I have tried to make names that was better than before ... but it seems like > there is some way to go ;-) > >> With this mail I would like to get an agreement on the terminology we >> can change to. >> >> - org vs other --> source/src and dest > > > Yes, that is a bit messy and could use some cleanup. > > I think the main challenge is that a pull request and compare in some ways > are looking at the same thing from different point of views and reuse code > and templates. The names source and dest are not so obvious in the context > of compare. But give it a try and see how it works out. (Consider doing the > two renaming in two different changesets so it is easier to review.)
Ah, that does indeed make a difference - source/dest isn't right for pure diffs. >> - c.cs_repo: what does 'cs' stand for here? This could become src_repo > > > 'cs' is for changesets, referring to the side where the changes happened. > > I think the advantage of the current naming is that it refers to what it > _is_ not to what we might happen to use it for or how we interpret it. Would "changed_repo" be OK? >> - c.a_repo: what does 'a' stand for here?? This could become dest_repo. > > The 'a' was meant to refer to the ancestor used for comparing. And expanding this out to "ancestor_repo"? Now you've explained them, I think changed & ancestor make sense as terminology, but the "cs" and "a" abbreviations are arguably a bit *too* abbreviated for clarity. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
