Warping minds with the phrase "changeset"

[Martin Pool]

On 29 Jan 2006, James Blackwell <jblack at merconline.com> wrote:
> I wrote up a blog entry today that is intended to be the basis of a later,
> better written article. In the entry I use the term "changeset"
> (reference: http://jblack.linuxguru.net/CVStoBazaarNG).  The comments I've
> received were generally favorable and limited to 'fix up this sentence and
> its pretty good' type comments. 
> 
> One of the more experienced users expressed a concern to me that I warping
> minds and that I should stop: "We do not have changesets. Please stop
> warping peoples' minds." I'm not quite sure what to do with the comment. I
> want to convey a clear conceptual understanding in my writing that we have
> something that is not like CVS. I do not want to so at the cost of
> destroying minds.
> 
> It may seem that I overly focus on terms. I'm not being myopic; I just
> usually end up being the first person to try and put our concepts into a
> descriptive format.

"Changesets" are a term which has several different definitions in use. 

One of them is, as you say, that a changeset is a description of changes
to a whole tree, i.e. a set of patches, and that you can identify the
changeset as a whole.  We have these, as do most other modern systems,
and at least some use the term "changeset", at least informally.

There is another definition which is that it should be possible to
rearrange or rewrite history more than you can with bzr.  

I think you could just add a note that "changeset" is variously defined.

-- 
Martin
-------------- 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/20060130/5756ae26/attachment.pgp