On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Blair Zajac wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >email@example.com wrote:
> >>Author: dlr
> >>Date: Mon Jul 16 17:45:21 2007
> >>New Revision: 25763
> >>Change "revert" terminology to "rollback" throughout to differentiate
> >>between Subversion's 'revert' subcommand and a subtractive 'merge'.
> >Actually, I'm concerned about the use of the term rollback to mean "any ol'
> >reversal of a changeset". If I'm not mistaken, there are VC system in
> >rollback means something different, namely the pruning of last N changes to
> >a line of history. In other words, given a file added in r1, changed in
> >r6, and r9, it means nothing to "rollback r6". You can rollback *to* r6
> >reversing r9). You can rollback *to* r1 (by reversing r3, r6, and r9).
> >rollbacks don't have gaps in them.
> >I can't readily point to documentation of other VC systems to back my claim
> >(which is based entirely on now-fading memories). Am I the only person who
> >thinks of the term "rollback" in this way?
> Well, I would guess that people coming from a database background will
> think of rollbacks the way you describe them.
> Why don't we call them reverse merges? There's no ambiguity there.
Yup. Just seemed a little long for a variable name...
Received on Wed Jul 18 01:36:02 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored