There's nothing horribly wrong with "revision" and -r, as long as we
change all the code and other documentation to match.
We need to consistently call them either "revisions" or "versions".
The latter is slightly easier to say, and even when discussing
CVS-controlled files, people often slip into saying "version" instead
of "revision" anyway. That's (I suspect?) why we just started using
the word "version" in our original drafts (Jim, was there any other
reason?).
What do other people think about this issue?
-K
Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> Bruce Korb wrote:
>
> > < confusing. So Subversion has one option namespace, and all options
> > < come after the subcommand.
> > ---
> >
> >> confusing. So each subversion subcommand will have one option name
> >
> ^ Should be capital S?
>
> >>
> >> space and all options come after the subcommand.
> >
> [snip]
>
> > This spec conflicts with the usual and customary usage of the
> > `--version' option. I am _strongly_ in favor of minimizing such
> > differences and do not see a compelling reason for a variation here.
> > How about `--file-version' or `--repository-version' or
> > `--object-version'? *ANY*thing except `--version', please.
>
> I'd go with --object-version, although what's wrong with --revision is
> beyond me ...
>
> --
> Brane �ibej
> home: <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
> ACM: <brane_at_acm.org> http://www.acm.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006