[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: UI change proposal: *-tag -> *->id

From: Robert Anderson
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: UI change proposal: *-tag -> *->id
Date: 19 Sep 2003 01:03:55 -0700

On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 00:19, Pau Aliagas wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2003, Miles Bader wrote:
> > Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
> > > > In line with the previous discussion, I'd like to following Robert
> > > > Anderson's suggestion and change all the various *-tag commands to be
> > > > *-id (the idea being that the term -tag is easily confused with
> > > > branch-tagging, which seems to be the more widespread use of the term in
> > > > this context):
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be easier to change tag to branch-tag or version-tag?
> > 
> > Tag is a widely used term in general with regard to source-control, with
> > the meaning that the tla `tag' command uses (at the least, it's what CVS
> > uses, and CVS is the big influence on the block).
> I have never found confusing the duality of meaning of tag as it refers to
> very different and clerly separated concepts. 

So: Why have two words for two concepts when one will do? :)

> In fact, I find its use very
> convinient in both cases as its the exact word that defines what you mean 
> to do.

Huh?  We could define versions to be called tags and patches to be
called tags and your statement would still be true.  So, I don't see
your point.

With the current terminology, I can think of at least 4 meanings for
"tag."  I think it's worth renormalizing, myself.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]