Re: Terminology suggestion

[Keith Thompson]

On Tue 10-06-22 15:30, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 02:34 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> 
> > - RCS 5.7 and previous always said "RCS file", not "repository".
> > 
> > - ttn's eyes glazed over reading "RCS file", RCS this, RCS that;
> >   started using "repo" in the source to describe a single ,v file;
> >   and in the end, succumbed to inflicting this intolerance on the users.
> 
> This is not a good time to be introducing new terminology.
> Furthermore, the use of the word "repository" to mean "RCS file"
> conflicts with longstanding practice in other revision control systems.
> 
> I'd stick with the term "RCS file" for now, to talk about single ,v files;
> that's what people have been used to, and personal preference is
> not a good enough reason to overturn longstanding standard practice.

I have to agree.  I understand that seeing "RCS file" many many
times, as ttn has, could lead to serious eye-glazing.  On the other
hand, hardly anybody other than ttn is likely to have this problem.

And since the CVS documentation uses the term "RCS file" (at least
55 times by my count), I suggest that compatibility argues for
keeping the name as it is.  Think about a CVS user looking in the
RCS documentation for more information on "RCS files".

If RCS were being designed from scratch today, one might argue for
"repository file" rather than "RCS file", especially since the format
is used by more than just RCS.  But then again, since other systems
have different file formats, it then might sometimes be necessary
to refer to an "RCS repository file".

I vote to keep the term "RCS file".  (What do you mean, this isn't
a democracy?)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) address@hidden  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"