Re: [Monotone-devel] A better name for "context"

[Jerome Fisher]

Nathaniel Smith wrote:

> I really don't like "changeset", since to me it implies something like
> a recursive diff -- enough information to reconstruct a tree B given a
> tree A.  The two problems being that "context"s don't exactly contain
> that detailed information, and that a "context" is an end-point, not
> an transition.  Changesets describe transitions.
>  

As I wrote, I don't like "changeset" for contexts either. But unless 
Graydon's implementation differs from what was proposed on this mailing 
list, I don't agree that contexts are more an end point than a 
transition. They describe both equally:

1) They describe the new state by specifying the new manifest ID.
2) They describe the transition(s) from the ancestor(s) by explicitly 
listing all file additions, deletions, modifications and renames.

> These all have the common problem that they assume a point of view;
> they're all talking about a "context" relative to its parents.  Things
> quickly become incoherent when you want to say something like "What is
> this successor's parent successor's?"
>  

Yeah, they're too directed. I felt that wasn't a good idea myself.

>  footstep, footprint, impress, trace, track, tread, rung, feat
>
> Hmm, "rung" has potential.  Or a neologism, like "codestep" or
> something... or something like "mnode" for "monotone node"... or just
> "tone"?
>  

Surely monotone can only have one tone? :)