[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: client README stuff

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_galois.collab.net>
Date: 2000-10-31 15:52:00 CET

Okay; your arguments seem pretty good to me. I'd like to hear what a
few other people think before we change it.

-K

Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> 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/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.