Terminology for referring to branches during merges and conflicts

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2010-01-15 12:13 (+1100), Ben Finney wrote:

> (Vincent, as a side note: could you please set your quoting leader to
> the conventional ‘> ’ instead of these obtrusive leaders? I usually
> find myself skipping over your messages as too much effort to parse
> through the quoted material.)

I hate those Emacs Supercite quotes too.

> That's the problem: The resulting mental mapping doesn't match what
> Bazaar claims for “mine” and “theirs”. Especially when “this branch”
> is *not* mine, and “the other branch” *is* mine.
>
> The “this”/“other” terminology doesn't have that problem — in the
> contexts being discussed, they are unambiguous references since the
> operations are always performed “in this branch” and comparing to “the
> other branch” — so I think that terminology should be consistently and
> exclusively used for the relative branch references in such
> operations.

In case somebody is interested Git uses "our(s)" and "their(s)"
terminology quite consistently. I'm not saying that Bazaar people should
do the same. It's just a good idea to be aware of existing terminology
when making related decisions.