[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: Pau Aliagas
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: UI change proposal: *-tag -> *->id
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:04:45 +0200 (CEST)

On 19 Sep 2003, Robert Anderson wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 00:19, Pau Aliagas wrote:

> > > 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? :)

That's what I propose, leave it as is as it causes no confusion.

> > 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.

If I can talk about tags in branches and in files and have no risk of 
getting confused, why change it?

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

We could move file-tag to file-id, as suggested, but that would be more
confusing as you have to use "arch-tag" inside a file. Should we move it 
too to "file-id"?

I'm not opposed to normalizing commands, but in this case I dont find it 


reply via email to

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