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

From: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
Date: Apr 18, 2007, 20:19 UTC
Message-ID: <200704182219.26410.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704181130330.30721@reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk>

onsdag 18 april 2007 12:33 skrev Julian Phillips:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Sam Vilain wrote:
> 
> > Julian Phillips wrote:
> >>> Sure... and from my own perspective as a user, I didn't even realise
> >>> what float did until now, and was surprised that "bury" would mean that.
> >>> The metaphor is a stack, not a pool or a sandpit. I don't think those
> >>> terms really assist in understanding, however cute they are.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I find that bury is more natural than float (thinking of a stack of
> >> documents on a desk ...).  But then I don't use stg ...
> >>
> >
> > You demonstrate my point :) by apparently missing that "bury" and
> > "float" are supposed to be the *opposite* of each other.
> 
> I didn't mean to give that impression.  I was aware that they were 
> opposites, but was only commenting on my view of the intuitivness of each.
> 
> 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.

I did consider raise, but then you can raise things only a little. Floating a patch makes it move all the way to the top.

-- robin