Definition of branch?

[John Arbash Meinel]

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Tim Hill wrote:
>> Sorry to spam with such a simple question ...
>>
>> The User's Guide says: "A branch is an ordered set of revisions" and
>> "Branches may split apart and be merged back together". From this, I
>> take the definition of a branch to be a linear timeline of revisions
>> that may or may not have merges to/from other branches which also have
>> their own linear timeline.
>>
>> However, it then also says: "A branch might have other lines of
>> development..." which makes a branch sound more like an entire tree.
>>
>> Trying to reconcile these two statements.
> 
> Technically, nodes in a tree have exactly one parent (zero if the root)
> and zero or more children, so that's the wrong model. The data structure
> is known as a "graph" which is like a tree but a node can have multiple
> parents.
> 
> In an attempt to make Bazaar accessible to non-programmers, the
> documentation starts with the most common case - a linear timeline of
> revisions - and then attempts to build up to the true model (directed
> acyclic graph). Apologies for the resulting lack of clarity. If you can
> think of a better way of explaining this, please let me know.
> 
> Ian C.

"A branch might have other lines of development" sounds like you would 
have multiple tips to me. Which may be the point of confusion.

I would probably change this paragraph:
* a branch might have other lines of development and if it does,
   these other lines of development begin at some point and end at
   another point.

to something like

* a branch may have merged multiple lines of development.

Or maybe

* a branch may have had multiple lines of dev...

I think using the present tense of "might have other lines" sounds like 
you have multiple tips. Then again if you are considering the branch as 
the whole history, the "current" state includes the multiple lines of 
development....

I may be biased having waded neck-deep in Bazaar for the last couple of 
years, though. So having someone else consider terminology might be better.

John
=:->