Re: [Gnu-arch-users] terminology: should join-branch be join-version?

[Miles Bader]

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 06:03:27PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> The title prtty much says it all.

That's sort of a sticky point, I think:

It's my impression people generally think in terms of `branches', and that
the version component sort of gets shuffled aside as "really just part of the
branch" (especially in cases where the version is essentially unused, "0" or
something).

Because of this I sometimes find a bit awkward writing documentation for tla
because where the most `correct' way to state something is "... mumble foo
the version ...", it might actually be clearer to use `branch' instead.
I often just end up using the term `branch/version' or something instead.

[This is another reason, BTW, that replacing the current strict two-level
hierarchy with just a N-level branch-component-which-can-contain-versions
would be an improvement (IMHO).]

-Miles
-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.