[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "vendor branch"

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: "vendor branch"
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:25:07 -0600 (MDT)

I asked why an Emacs CVS interface has a command for "vendor branch",
and Stephan Monnier replied:

    It comes from the original motivation for CVS: keep a local repository with
    local changes to some externally developed program.  You keep the
    vendor's source code on a branch called the vendor branch (normally
    1.1.1) and you keep your own version on the trunk.

I suspected it was something like that.  The problem with this
terminology is the assumption that the original version of the program
came to you from a "vendor".  That assumption essentially denies the
existence of organizations such as the FSF, or the CVS developers
likewise, which develop software but are not vendors.

Ten years ago I convinced the POSIX committee to get rid of certain
statements which assumed every system has a "vendor".  Can we replace
"vendor" in CVS with some other term that doesn't make that
assumption?  Perhaps "original" version?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]