[RFC] naming of obsolescence troubles

[Matt Harbison]

Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david <at> logilab.fr> writes:

> 
> I'm about to submit patches to compute the two remaining troubles related to
> mutable history exchanges[1] (the first is "unstable" already in 2.3). But
> their name are not fully hammered yet.
> Please read the sentences below and discuss the *terms* used.
> 
>     Exchange mutable history can bring different kind of *troubles*.
> 
>     First, ancestors of a changeset may becomes obsoletes. Such changeset are
>     called *unstable*.

'Unstable' seems good, but what if 'unstable' was used in place of 'troubled',
and this case was called an 'orphan'?  I realize it's still connected in the
DAG, so not truly an orphan, but with obsolete csets generally being hidden, it
might better convey the concept.

This might work better if the command to resolve all of these cases is
'stabilize'.  (FWIW, the command 'evolve' conjures an image of the thing that
would place obsolete markers and cause a cset to evolve into another, not
necessarily the command to fix these problems.  IDK if the plan was to have an
all in one command or not.)

>     Second, a changeset may be a rewritten of a changeset now immutable. Such
>     changeset are called *latecomer*.

'Mutant'?  Given that it applies to a cset that is attempting to replace
something that is immutable, I think that also gives more clarity to the
particular scenario (i.e. there's a mutant of something that is immutable).

--Matt