B. Smith-Mannschott wrote:
>> "The root of <url> is <shorter-url>."
>> "The tree containing <url> is rooted at <shorter-url>."
> Yea, actually --root is what I'd been using, though I neglected to put
> it in my list. I'm not too keen on it because it's not specific
> enough. The root of what? The project, the repository, the current
> trunk-or-branch-or-tag (tobot?)
But the 'project' is the root. It has revisions. The revisions are
located by both the URL path and revision number where the current
revision is assumed if you omit it. Why call these things anything
else? The rest is just convention as you might note by the ability to
copy any revision specified by url and revision number to any other URL
>> He's not looking for a word for the project. He's looking for a word that
>> can be used to describe the trunk, or any branch, or any tag, of the
> correct. In fact, let me draw a picture. (please put on your ascii-art goggles)
> repository root url project name *mumble* *mumble* *mumble*-relative
> "repo" kind name path
> project url
> *mumble* url
> Where in the case of trunk, this looks a little different:
> kind &
> *mumble* url
They are all revisions... Tags are the only things that are different,
and only by the convention that you don't commit after creating them so
they only have the HEAD revision - and that isn't enforced.
> I like variant.
Why is that better than 'revision' or 'version'? Using only one term
makes it easier to see that there are multiple dimensions to the way you
access them and one is as valid as another. That is, you get a revision
whether or not you specify a revision number, and tags are just a way to
tie a revision to the head of URL path.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-08-18 16:52:30 CEST