Warping minds with the phrase "changeset"

[Jan Hudec]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 23:00:32 -0500, James Blackwell 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.

I have read the part and I'd say, that it's not changesets that allow
the cross-repository merges. What allows that are globally unique
revision identifiers.

Note, that svk can do with just globally unique repository identifiers,
but it does not allow convergence. To achieve convergence revision
identifiers must be repository-independent, so you can copy a revision
and keep it's id.

Changesets are something different. They are first-class citinzens only
in quilt. In all version control systems, they are subordinate to their
base and target revision.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- 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/f0814cf3/attachment.pgp