Karl Fogel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Okay; your arguments seem pretty good to me. I'd like to hear what a
> few other people think before we change it.
> Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <email@example.com> 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?).
No, nothing more substantial. Version is simpler to say. I guess
"revision" hit me as more of a circumlocution. But see below...
> > > 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.)
Hmm... the former *is* a mess. I can never remember how to tell GCC
to show me the subprograms it's running.
> > 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.
Perhaps so, but we're screwing around with the whole concept of
versions enough anyway. I don't think the transition will be
brainless for anyone.
> > Besides, "revision" is more correct than "version", although people keep
> > mixing the terms. Like "liberty" and "freedom", eh?. :-)
My dictionary says:
version: a form or variant of a type or original <an experimental ~ of
revision: 1b: a result of revising 2: a revised version
So revision(2) is really the closest to what we have in mind.
It's fine with me.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006