"Archive" or "Repository"?

[James Blackwell]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:37:17PM +0100, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> 2005/11/16, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca>:
> > The two terms seem to be roughly equivalent, but "Repository" seems to
> > be more widely-used.  Is there any reason we shouldn't call our Archives
> > Repositories instead?
> 
> bzr calls this a "branch", darcs calls this a repository.
> 
> For me, branch means something I create a branch off to do some
> hacking on, I will "fork" from that point for a while.  If I just run
> "bzr get http://....../" all I do is create a local copy of that
> repository.  As long as I just pull stuff, it's still just a copy of
> that repository.  If I check something in (and pull stops working),
> than it's a branch for me.
> 
> That's the way it works in my brain.

No worries. A branch is still a branch. :)

> For me, "Archive" would be the thing that stores the history and each
> commit etc. In a "normal" repository that would be the .bzr directory
> but in a centralized storage that would be the central storage.

Ahh, but what do you call a thing that is a collection of branches?
There's two specifications at http://bazaar.canonical.com/ named
BzrArchives and CentralizedStorage that are involved with the concept
of keeping two or more branches in what almost can be called the same
place.

Why? A bunch of reasons, though one nice one is it simplifies the concept
of aggegration enough that one can store the history for related branches
together enough and save on redundant revisions.

> So, in my mind, a branch might not be the same as a repository, a
> repository is not the same as an archive (although it's stored in
> one).
> 
> But, maybe I'm just adding confusion. I'm happy either way :)
> 
> /Erik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051116/d2bce59b/attachment.pgp