> On Oct 14, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Ryan Lovelett <swift-...@ryan.lovelett.me> 
> wrote:
>> Whether "pinning" is the right word is a different debate, but when we view 
>> pinning as a workflow-focused feature, versus the specification in the 
>> manifest (which is the "requirement"), then I think the connotation actually 
>> works fairly well (e.g., a pinboard is something you pin to while working, 
>> or pinning a dress while you stitch it). I also wasn't a huge fan of pin 
>> initially, but as it bounced around in my head for a while I really started 
>> to like it, for exactly this connotation reason.
> I think this comment drives at the core of the difference between this 
> proposal and what Orta, Alexis and others are saying. (At least for me)
> The description you've provided here, specifically the word "workflow", and 
> the concept of operations described by the proprosal are meant to be a 
> transient. They are meant as a temporary description of how these 
> dependencies should be kept in order.  To my mind one "puts a pin" in 
> something temporarily. To comeback to it later to do something with it at 
> that time. Thus the pin probably does work with this concept.
> Conversely, the concept of "locking" something feels less transient. It feels 
> more permanent. More like the concept of operations described by Orta, Alexis 
> and others. Idle speculation: might be why those other managers selected the 
> word lock.
> Not sure where I come down on the whole thing yet. Just wanted to say that if 
> the propsal goes another way than what was first propsed a new word likely 
> should be investigated.

I agree with everything here. :)

 - Daniel

swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to