Re: [BuildStream] Renaming junction `target` option name

[Tristan Van Berkom <tristan vanberkom codethink co uk>]

Hi all,

As mentioned on the merge request[0], some conversation happened on IRC
around this rename[1], which resulted in a different approach.

Instead of renaming the existing junction option, we've opted to remove
it entirely, and introduce a new kind of element called a `link`.

The `link` element can be used as a symbolic link to another element,
either in the local project or in a subproject, and it can equally be
used to link to a `junction` element.

This more flexible new element is much clearer in it's purpose and can
be used to achieve the same thing as a junction with the `target`
option specified.

This was written up over the weekend and is currently available on this
new merge request[2].

Cheers,
    -Tristan

[0]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/merge_requests/1937
[1]: https://irclogs.baserock.org/buildstream/%23buildstream.2020-05-05.log.html#t2020-05-05T06:42:26
[2]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/merge_requests/1948


On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 17:44 +0100, Chandan Singh wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
>
> > There is consensus enough that it is worth renaming the option
>
> +1
>
> > Decision time
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The MR is up and currently does the "link" thing, I'll be happy to
> > change it again, my favorite is still of course "inherit".
>
> I don't like `use` as much as it seems rather vague. Personally, I'd
> be okay with both `link` and `inherit`.
>
> To pick one, my vote will be for `link`. This is because `inherit`
> reminds me of inheritance in OO terms, which makes me think that my
> project is somehow going to inherit all elements from the subproject.
> And `link`ing seems close enough to what we're doing.
>
> Cheers,
> Chandan