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

[James Blackwell]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:01:59AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> So an important note here - in the internal code of bzr the 'sharedness'
> of a repository is taken into consideration in precisely two code paths:
>  * when cloning to preserve that status
>  * when determining if a repository can be used by a branch.
> 
> Other than that there is are conditionals looking at is_shared.
> 
> I don't understand how calling the same object doing the same job as
> both the large scale repository and the small repository storing history
> for a single branch different names can be a good idea.
> 
> I think I need to -see- this confusion in action.

In the prior sentence you seem to disagree. In the paragraph prior to
that, you seem to agree. 

I can go on at length for why this should happen. I can refer to the
requirements of good writing (clear & internally consistant). I can
explain that writing is dependant upon terminology in the terms of
building blocks and stable foundations.  I can remind you of the mandate
that Bazaar-NG be easy to use is dependent upon Bazaar-NG being easy to
learn.  I can even provide numbers if thats what it takes.  Explaining
need for the change is easy.

What I can not do is express why you're against this. There seems to be
general, but not unanimous,  agreement that changing the terminology
somehow would help when it comes to describing Bazaar-NG to others.

Can you please enumerate your concerns for changing the terminology for
'shared repository' ?

-- 
My home page:   <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400  F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060301/9d2d2057/attachment.pgp