terminlogy shared, unified, integrated (was Re: Simplified Tutorial (alternatives to "init-repo"))

[Matthew Hannigan]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:03:48PM +0200, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >Jari Aalto+usenet wrote:
> >> * Thu 2006-06-29 John Yates <jyates AT netezza.com>
> >> * Message-Id: 4D87F853B8020F4888896B1507DC0F09827363 AT mail2.netezza.com
> >>
> >>>Just a thought:
> >>>
> >>>Instead of talking about "shared" repositories how
> >>>about either "unified" or "integrated" repositories?
> >> Yes, yes and yes! integrated sounds to my ear the most descriptive.
> >
> >Integrated and unified both sound like they mean that the repositories
> >are part of the branches, not shared among them.
> >
> 
> That was my first thought also.

Me too :-)

How about 'common' -- it has the right meaning, same as shared.

The only unfortunate thing is that 'common' has a few other meanings.

Synonyms are 'joint', 'conjoint', and possibly 'united'.

Matt