Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rename 'partner' to 'parent' #20

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 20, 2011
Merged

rename 'partner' to 'parent' #20

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 20, 2011

Conversation

stoicflame
Copy link
Contributor

I propose we rename 'partner' to 'parent' for consistency with the parents property on person and for consistency in industry.

@ninjudd
Copy link
Contributor

ninjudd commented Sep 13, 2011

I think partners is more clear because you can have marriages with no children. In this case, parents is confusing.

@stoicflame
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think partners is more clear because you can have marriages with no children. In this case, parents is confusing.

I was thinking that the purpose of Family would be to model families and a marriage (with no children) would be modeled with an event.

IMO "partner" is not only using a new word to describe something that has always been "parent" in the genealogical community, but to me, "partner" just isn't clear. You can have a "partner" in a business relationship, too. And it doesn't make sense to say "Here's a family with children Fred and Mary; their partners are John and Susie." Ick.

FWIW, I'm not trying to impose some kind of gender constraint here. I'm just trying to model consistency and clarity. I don't think you'd propose renaming the parents property of Person to partners, so lets stay consistent. Even in a family with no children it makes sense to me to say "parents".

@stoicflame
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi. Just waking up this thread. So can I apply this?

@ninjudd
Copy link
Contributor

ninjudd commented Sep 20, 2011

I'd still prefer partners, but I don't feel that strongly about it. So as long as nobody thinks parents is confusing for families without children...

On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Ryan Heatonreply@reply.github.com wrote:

Hi. Just waking up this thread. So can I apply this?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#20 (comment)

@stoicflame
Copy link
Contributor Author

I feel bad, but I can't help feeling pretty strongly about this.

I noticed the other day an ad for an insurance agency that said "your family's partners since 1956" and I thought that if we ever needed to supply information about the insurance agent for a family, then the partners property would be perfect for that!

But since modeling the insurance agents for a family isn't a priority at the moment, I really think we need to supply the parents of a family and drop the partners property.

So unless there's strong objections, I'm going to apply this change.

@stoicflame stoicflame merged commit 99e9276 into historical-data:gh-pages Sep 20, 2011
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants