Re: "vendor branch"

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I asked why an Emacs CVS interface has a command for "vendor branch",
> and Stephan Monnier replied:
> 
>     It comes from the original motivation for CVS: keep a local repository 
> with
>     local changes to some externally developed program.  You keep the
>     vendor's source code on a branch called the vendor branch (normally
>     1.1.1) and you keep your own version on the trunk.
> 
> I suspected it was something like that.  The problem with this
> terminology is the assumption that the original version of the program
> came to you from a "vendor".  That assumption essentially denies the
> existence of organizations such as the FSF, or the CVS developers
> likewise, which develop software but are not vendors.
> 
> Ten years ago I convinced the POSIX committee to get rid of certain
> statements which assumed every system has a "vendor".  Can we replace
> "vendor" in CVS with some other term that doesn't make that
> assumption?  Perhaps "original" version?

Just call it the import branch.  Makes more sense anyhow.

Ian