Call for discussion: Phase names

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Na'Tosha Bard <natosha at unity3d.com> wrote:
> 2012/1/10 Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com>
>>
>> Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 16:16 -0600, Kevin Bullock wrote:
>> >> On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 20:28 +0100, Olav Reinert wrote:
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >>    personal, mine, isolated, tentative, shy, scratch, jailed,
>> >> >>    moored, anchored, grounded
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't like any of these even a little. I think it needs to be
>> >> > synonymous with private, which basically limits the possibilities
>> >> > to 'private', 'secret', and 'restricted'.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps this has been suggested and rejected already, but what about:
>> >> public / drafpt / local ?
>> >>
>> >> Pro: it's a reasonable antonym of 'public', particularly in the
>> >> phrase "local changes"
>> >> Con: it's also the antonym of 'remote', as in 'remote repo' vs.
>> >> 'local repo'
>> >
>> > It's not horrible, but it's a bit more ambiguous about intent than
>> > private/secret/restricted.
>>
>> I'm a fan of "local": it does not imply anything about security and it
>> highlights the distinguishing property of these changesets compared to
>> "draft" changesets: they stay local.
>
>
> I think that is really bad.  In normal Mercurial-related conversation,
> "local" is almost always used to refer to any changes that I have on my
> local machine, but have not pushed.  Trying to give this word a new meaning
> is a really bad idea, IMO.
>
> Na'Tosha

I agree with Na'Tosha. I often use "local changeset" when discussing
mercurial with colleagues, to refer to those changesets that are on my
local machine. I like private the best, but it clashes with public...

I wouldn't mind secret if the changesets were really secret though.

Angel