Some initial impressions of phases

[Pierre-Yves David]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:03:19AM +0100, Laurens Holst wrote:
> Op 24-01-12 09:14, Jason Harris schreef:
> >>>Point 10.
> >>>
> >>>This still has public<  draft<  secret. Wasn't it decided to use private rather than secret?
> >>Well, the choice was public/draft/secret + short opts or
> >>public/draft/private + only long opts. Since insufficient enthusiasm was
> >>expressed for the latter, we're sticking with the former.
> >What? I thought most everyone commenting on email preferred the second one, or they had
> >a different opinion. Some people wanted different names, but of the names which most people
> >agreed on, secret was not the preferred name. For the reasons I and others have articulated
> >it's a bad name.
> 
> I’m fine with secret, I think the name implies the correct semantics
> this phase should have. So I didn’t respond to that thread, which
> was about searching for an alternative, not a vote (besides,
> Mercurial is no democracy).
> 
> Also that discussion was started before it was decided to give the
> secret/private phase stricter semantics in terms of when and how it
> is shared. Also later it turned out that using the name private
> would mean that there will be no short options. Most of the mails
> were responding based on different assumptions.

Please considerer spawning a dedicated thread (or revive the original one) if
you intend to restart this discussion.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David

http://www.logilab.fr/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120124/9069f5c3/attachment.pgp>