I think I understand what "no longer relevant" means, but "stale" is unclear to me; I've always thought of something that has gone stale as something that someone should have done something with earlier but somehow 'overlooked.'
And, as to "not going to get merged," well, why isn't that feature going to get
merged? I wonder how many people are going to feel completely satisfied by either that classification or "stale" ? On 26.11.19 22:44, hh via use-livecode wrote:
@Mark Waddingham. Good to know you are still alive. LC version numbering has it's own logic, agreed -- as long as it's counting up. Integers are meek as a lamb, we have enough of them. Nevertheless Mark Wieder made a good point with looking at the pull requests. If I understand correctly then you both are right: At the very end it is the content that matters. Now we all look forward to know which pull requests are *NOT* "incomplete or WIP" and which are *NOT* "stale / no longer relevant / not going to get merged". _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
