Call for discussion: Phase names
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
Thu Jan 12 02:28:18 CST 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 10 janv. 2012, at 13:01, Levi Bard wrote:
>> However, by that logic, "public" could be improved to highlight the
>> distinguishing property (immutability). Maybe permanent/draft/local?
> Continuing that logic, why not just call them "immutable" ?
> For one thing, it will short-circuit the billion instances of the
> following exchange:
> "Hey, what's the difference between public and draft changesets?"
> "Public changesets are immutable."
> Going farther, what about immutable / mutable / whatever ?
Having the same name for property and phase does not look a good idea.
Phase are not expected to receive significant change while the property name are expected to be alterable by extension or later mechanism. As Highlighted during the sprint several use case may lead to the same kind of behavior (immutable, shared) without using phase directly.
For example I expect he obsolete concept to control the sharing of changeset with a different logic than the phase one.
Having the same name for phase and property will lead to confusion.
 But quite similar as you won't exchange a changeset without it's parent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Mercurial-devel