"revision" considered confusing (was: Outdated Wiki Page?)

[Martin Pool]

On 4/24/07, John Yates <jyates at netezza.com> wrote:
> Always happy to beat a dead horse, in this case the confusion
> caused by perpetuating the traditional term "revision".  Here
> are Eugene's definitions that mention revision:

So basically that is to say that in this context (at least) we should
just stop saying 'revision' and use the noun 'commit'.

I'd rather explain it as: the 'commit' command makes a new 'revision'
object.  This is consistent with our current ui and code, and i think
reasonably clear, unless i'm missing your point.


-- 
Martin