On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:04:01 +0200, Edward Morden wrote
> Hello my name is Edward Morden and I am a bit concerned about the
> abbreviation "SVN" which belongs to the program Subversion.
> For me its really unclear why you chose "SVN". The "SV" is destinct cause
> of *S**ub**V**ersion* but where did you get the "N" from?
> What is the "N" supposed to mean? I looked though all the articles
> and even wikipedia but nowhere I can find an explanation. I would
> really be happy to recieve a email from you with your ideas behind
> the abbrevation "SVN".
> >From a logical view it makes not really sense and seems to only confuse the
> users of SubVersion.
> I would also suggest to think about renaming the abbrevation to "SV"
> which would be the best solution.
I would think that the application abbreviation would be the
least of the users' concern in terms of 'confusion'. I would
figure the command line options to be confusing or the
different commands to be confusing (which they aren't).
Thankfully, you didn't post this in the dev mailing list.
Considering svn_ is plastered all over the code, you'd
probably freak out even more.
It's really simple. If you don't like the name; when you
compile or use the binary, change the name to 'sv'. After
all, it's just a name of a binary. That way, your concerns
are met. Everyone's happy.
Perhaps I don't understand the issue at hand and would
appreciate a further explanation as to why users would
be concerned of the name of the binary. The name of
the application is still Subversion.
The closest concern I would've thought you would feel
users being concerned about 'Subversion' could be the
fact that 'Subversion' (or rather, subversion) is
the noun for the verb 'to subvert', which is a bad
thing, no? But since this is in a SCM context, the
confusion is highly overrated.
Just my $0.02. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-08-30 05:38:10 CEST