3 ms·
At my last job Gitlab was in the stack and I had never used it before so I was expecting it to be a real pain. It was actually a perfectly pleasant experience.
by ryanmcbride 7y ago
At my last job Gitlab was in the stack and I had never used it before so I was expecting it to be a real pain. It was actually a perfectly pleasant experience. I don't think it'll make me leave Github but I put them at the same level now.
Merge Requests never felt right saying over Pull Requests, even though it's more descriptive of what's actually happening.
- banachtarski 7y agoI'm being pedantic here, but the reason I prefer pull is because it feels more general than a "merge," which to me precludes a fetch/rebase. I guess you could consider it a merge -ff-only, but in a mergeless-master workflow, "merge request" felt awkward.
- auspex 7y agoI agree with you here. The git repo "pulls" changes from a remote instance/branch and then merges the changes.
- ryanmcbride 7y agoThat makes a lot of sense
- Nimitz14 7y agoBut it's wrong. It's actually a "push" instead of "pull", the direction is away from what you're doing not towards you!
- banachtarski 7y agoIt’s a pull “request,” i.e. a request for someone else to pull your changes. I don’t follow your argument.
- Nimitz14 7y agoOr viewed from another perspective (the person initiating) a request for someone else to accept the changes you are pushing.
- chappi42 7y agoAs I understand they won't give up 'Merge Request'. But couldn't they at least make it configurable? 'Pull Request' was first and, as I suppose, is the preferred terminology by many.