Call for discussion: Phase names

[Jesper Schmidt]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:57:02 +0100, Pierre-Yves David  
<pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:

>
> On 18 janv. 2012, at 00:55, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 00:48 +0100, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>>> On 17 janv. 2012, at 20:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>>
>>>> Long options are the price of using private instead of secret as the
>>>> phase name.
>>>
>>> It's a pretty big price :-/
>>>
>>> Should we consider moving away from public then ?
>>
>> No, I haven't seen an alternative to public that I think is even
>> remotely usable.
>
> I'm unsure about what name we should pick if renaming to private deny  
> the short version :-/
>
> As the freeze is near, I hope Matt will be able to make the best choice.
>
> If people have strong opinion to express I believe they have less than  
> 24h to do so.
>

I thought that the price was going to be low, because phase transitions
were supposed to be performed automatically by other commands. I still
believe that 'private' is the best phase name for unshared changesets.

-- 
Jesper