[rfc-i] [Ietf-and-github] RFC Editor & Github
cabo at tzi.org
Sun Feb 24 12:47:52 PST 2019
On Feb 24, 2019, at 20:27, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 2:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill at hallambaker.com> wrote:
>> Take the term 'pull request'. What is that supposed to be? The only way I can interpret the term is that it is a request that I make to access the code in the repository. Obviously it is not that but what it is, I forget shortly after being told.
> It’s an automatically-generated patch.
And “pull request” is a github term, not a git term, and a very inaccurate one. The github clone gitlab uses a saner term, “merge request” (as in requesting the curator of the main line to merge the offered patch into mainline).
I wouldn’t think to defend the arcana of git (*). This could have been done much better, but it wasn’t. But then, I’m not going to defend the arcana of the English language, either.
I need to know both English and git to be a functioning member of the professional environment I’m part of.
To the people who use contempt to rationalize their bad decisions about not learning essentials: Get over it, and also please stop canvassing for foolishness.
But this is off-topic.
I find the diagnosis plausible that it is much more beneficial for the RPC to use git than to use the non-git github functions. Maybe we can re-evaluate the experiment under this lens.
(Well, OK, I refused to learn TeX mainly because I know how much better it could have been done, so I’m a member of that foolishness club, too. But at least I’m not asking others to join.)
(*) https://xkcd.com/1597/ was mentioned — but please remember that this web comic is humor, which benefits from comic exaggeration.
More information about the rfc-interest