Closed marina-manrique closed 10 years ago
the name is a bit confusing for me too
Is it just about name or about the concept? Because the last seems to me quite confusing too
hm, I have an idea: what if gtm would do this pull-rewuest transformation when you do gtm push
? So user should worry about this github specific.
that's what I was about to suggest, but then one issue could be the amount of noise
I see two ways:
gtm push
somehow (not nice because needs to store the state)@laughedelic to me it's about the name, and I think I agree with you both on doing this with gtm push
, provided you are not forced to merge the push request, I don't know if what I say makes some sense...
yes, your are not forced to merge it. but I wo uld leave this command separately as a way of doing it manually (just in case), then which name wou ld you suggest?
gtm transform
maybe? @eparejatobes some ideas?
gtm pull-request
?
gtm morph
gtm transform-issue-into-pull-request-if-possible
gtm pullrequestify
gtm do-something-with-this-there-at-github
gtm fun-times
gtm digivolve
haha! :+1: @eparejatobes you are really creative today ")
I like gtm pullrequestify
")
I prefer gtm pull-request
....
now seriously, pull-request
is a bit too generic maybe, what about to-pull-request
?
gtm issue-to-pull-request
?
to-pull-request
would also be fine for me
Update to the v0.9.0 — it has both the alias and the auto-connecting on the first push.
@laughedelic great! truth is, I could not work without gtm
anymore :+1:
Maybe it's my lack of git experience but this command is a bit misleading to me, at first sight I expect to connect to somewhere somehow...