<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.<br></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>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)<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.<br></div>
</body>
</html>