Re: [PATCH] Add "stg bury" command, with the functionnality of contrib/stg-sink.

From: Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
Date: Apr 18, 2007, 20:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20070418203502.GA8524@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
In-Reply-To: <200704182219.26410.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:19:26PM +0200, Robin Rosenberg wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > I can't really think of a single metaphor where float and bury are both 
> > appropriate though.
> 
> The stack is transparent, so the "float" comes from thinking of the stack as a 
> column (glass pillar) of water with things in it. So I wanted to float patches. I
> didn't think too much about the name, it just popped out. At least that is what
> I *think* I was thinking at the time.
> 
> The logical opposide thing is to "sink" things you don't work to work on.  "bury" 
> implies  you don't see things, which just isn't true.

Indeed, I originally planned to name it "sink", as the prototype script. It is when starting to write the documentation, that I started to feel like writing "sink: bury patches down the stack", and felt there was something wrong. Since I could not find a plausible description involving "sink", I finally went for "stg bury", although I was not very pleased with it.

But if the consensus is that "sink" or something else sounds better, I have myself no objection to bury "bury" :)

Best regards,

-- 
Yann.