higher (secret) phase semantic

[Martin Geisler]

Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> writes:

> On 9 janv. 2012, at 20:28, Olav Reinert wrote:
>
>> The name "secret" is disliked because to some it suggests enforcement
>> of confidentiality (i.e., that it's safe to check in trade secrets or
>> nuclear launch codes), which is not the case, and not intended,
>> either.
>
>
> An extensive discussion between Matt Mackall, Benoit Boissinot and me
> took place Tuesday. We had conflicting initial version.
>
> My version was: 
>
> 	Secret changeset are by default excluded of exchange but stay
> 	discoverable, pushable and pullable if needed.

That was also my understanding based on the table:

            mutable  stay-local
  public
  draft     X
  secret    X        X

> Matt version was:
>
> 	Secret changeset are not exposed remotely at all.

That is more like

            mutable  stay-local  hidden
  public
  draft     X
  personal  X        X
  secret    X        X           X

That is, it's a *different* property than stay-local, leading to another
phase. At least that's how I thought of it.

-- 
Martin Geisler

aragost Trifork
Professional Mercurial support
http://mercurial.aragost.com/kick-start/