Terminology for referring to branches during merges and conflicts (was: [RFC] How to better assist users in resolving conflicts)

[Ben Finney]

Ben Finney <ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au> writes:

> Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> writes:
>
> > 2010/1/13 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr>:
> > > I switch from this/other to mine/theirs as I thought it made them
> > > more "personal". When I merge a branch into my current working
> > > tree, I clearly know which is "mine" and from there I deduce what
> > > is "theirs" without thinking about *who* is theirs :)
> >
> > ok
>
> OTOH, the “mine”/“theirs” terminology is needlessly distracting to me.
> Often there is no “mine”/“theirs” distinction; they're both mine, or
> they're both someone else's. So the terms aren't helpful in numerous
> cases, and I think it should be deprecated.

I forgot the case where the terminology is pathological: I often am
dealing with a merge where “this” == “theirs”, and “other” == “mine”.
Yet the terms used by Bazaar are opposite to that. That's an even
stronger argument for deprecating “mine”/“theirs”, IMO.

-- 
 \       “I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little |
  `\   children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming. |
_o__)             They don't know I'm only using blanks.” —Emo Philips |
Ben Finney