On 04/20/2015 06:02 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Mads Kiilerich <m...@kiilerich.com> wrote:
By the way ... it has been mentioned before that the term "pull request" is
weird for most workflows.
Inspired by discussions with people at the Mercurial sprint, I think I am
settling on using the term "series". It is all about presenting a series of
changes / patches / changesets so they can be previewed, reviewed, commented
on, approved or rejected, pulled and tested, rebased, grafted, "evolved" and
whatever you can come up with.
How would this term 'series' be used?
Now you can 'create a pull request' (which as Jan mentioned we have
translated as 'create a review request'. Would this become 'create a
series' ?
You really start creating the series when you start creating local
commits that don't get pushed to the upstream mainline immediately. It
becomes more necessary to have them as a manageable concept when you
start having multiple such series locally or want to share them with
others for collaboration, review or upstreaming.
So it will be more like "put this series up for review", "update the
series according to reviews", "review this series", "I applied your
series to the mainline".
Just an idea, but I like it.
You mentioned inspiration from the Mercurial sprint: how is this term
used in Mercurial? I'm aware of mq series, but haven't seen the term
elsewhere.
It is not directly used in Mercurial the tool or project but in the work
flows around Mercurial when using other tools like ReviewBoard or
Phabricator. From my point of view, evolve is all about reinventing mq
and thus they also need a "qseries" concept ;-)
/Mads
_______________________________________________
kallithea-general mailing list
kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org
http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
