Terminology for referring to branches during merges and conflicts

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Michael Gliwinski writes:
 > On Monday 18 January 2010 15:20:32 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > > Michael Gliwinski writes:
 > >  > BASE it could be something along the lines of '(NICK @ REV)' where
 > >  > obviously REV is that common ancestor revision?
 > >
 > > Er, by definition it's on both branches.  Which nick?
 > 
 > I'd say the one of THIS branch (i.e. being merged to), same for REV.  Do you 
 > think that could be confusing?

I don't think it would be particularly confusing, but it's not clear
to me which would be more useful.  I suspect it would depend on your
workflow, eg, if there had been any past merges and in which
direction.