Re: client README stuff

Karl Fogel wrote:

> 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?

I'd say we should try to avoid ambiguities. Watch ...

    svn -v (--version? --verbose (or is that -V)? --object-version?)

And now ...

    svn -r (--revision, yeah.)

I also think we should retain at least /some/ similarity with CVS'
interface. We want people to switch from CVS to SVN, so we should make
it easy for them.

Besides, "revision" is more correct than "version", although people keep
mixing the terms. Like "liberty" and "freedom", eh?. :-)

-- 
Brane �ibej
    home:   <brane_at_xbc.nu>           http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>          http://www.acm.org/