[RFC] New name for 'repositories' - 'baskets'

[Jan Hudec]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 15:42:31 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > Today there was a lenghty discussion caused by confusion whether stand-alone
> > branch has a repository or not. Ie. whether the place where stand-alone
> > branch stores revision data is called a repository or not.
> > 
> > In user level descriptions, we would like to not call it that, but:
> > - The object representing that place is called a repository in the code and
> >   thus it's also called it that way in technical discussions.
> > - Users are likely to expect 'repository' to mean 'where revision data live',
> >   which is not exactly it, because that includes the stand-alone branch.
> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> Originally we were calling it an Archive, coming from the Arch name.
> (And giving us a nice ABC: Archive, Branch, Checkout.)
> 
> We moved away from that to Repository, *because* other people would be
> more familiar with it.
> 
> If we were going to change away from Repository as the user-level
> object, I would prefer to call it Archive again.

That's what I actually suggested as well, but JBlack disagreed.
I think 'archive'(Arch) is closer to 'repository'(bzr,user-level) than
'repository'(CVS) is.

> But I think the better thing would be to switch to calling the
> user-level object Repository, and the code-level object something else.
> (Store has a small problem because we already have a Store, but code
> level people can adapt easier and faster than user-level people).
> 
> Basket is okay as a term, but I feel it is very informal. A 'basket of
> branches' seems like they are just thrown together. Not organized, etc.

But if you think of it, they in fact, really are not organized. They just
share the storage, but are otherwise independent. Which is one of the things
in which it is different from 'repository'(CVS).

> Both Archive and Repository have a little more respect. Like where you
> want to store your stuff, rather than where you put the stuff you pulled
> out of your pockets.
> 
> So my preferred naming is:
> 
> #1: Call user-level object repository, and keep 'make-repository', call
> the underlying implementation store, to go with .bzr/store/
> 
> #2: Call a collection of branches an "Archive" and leave the internals
> alone.

-- 
						 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/20060224/e9e2f14b/attachment.pgp