Getting Started with Bazaar presentation updated (and ready for the masses)
John Arbash Meinel
john at arbash-meinel.com
Tue Oct 16 18:45:52 BST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> You probably should use 'send them a "merge directive"' rather than 'send them
>> a "bundle"'. I personally prefer the term bundle, but as it has been used once,
>> and we are now superseding it with something else... MD is more accurate, and
>> handles the fact that the request doesn't even have to have the revision data.
>
> Yeah, I'd be happy with some friendier term for "merge directive".
>
Smürf
Sexy Merging Über Revision Format
Let me send you a smürf. How could it be friendlier than that?
If I had my choice, I would probably call them bundles, and just rename what we
currently have as a bundle.
At one point, we discussed using the term 'basket' to go along with our weaving
names. (though I think it was discussed for shared repositories.)
Merge directive is actually very good from a technical perspective. Merge
request would also be close, but suffers from still being 2 names (and not much
better than directive.)
Changeset?
Aggregate
Group
ChangeGroup
Pack
Slice
Hit (let me send you a hit)
Piece
Section
GoR (Gathering of Revisions)
Request
Merge Pack
...
I can't say I like any of them more than MD or Bundle. But sometimes
brainstorming leads to something.
>
>> On the SVN slide you have "dumb merging" and "dumb renaming". I might suggest
>> "simple merging". Though we really want "overly simple merging".
>
> Perhaps "limited merging / limited renaming" conveys the intent without
> being overly pejorative?
>
> Aaron
Sounds good to me.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHFPjQJdeBCYSNAAMRAi+DAKDTC6siW1lcCaXfP50rYufXw1RHJgCfV1j5
IJDAe7oyvd5SEDAbfHnDHqM=
=8DXq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bazaar
mailing list