[RFC] New name for 'repositories' - 'baskets'

[Jan Hudec]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 20:12:55 -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:22:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > I don't understand how calling the same object doing the same job as
> > > > both the large scale repository and the small repository storing history
> > > > for a single branch different names can be a good idea.
> He agrees with me?
> 
> > > > I think I need to -see- this confusion in action.
> He disagrees with me?
> 
> > > In the prior sentence you seem to disagree. In the paragraph prior to
> > > that, you seem to agree. 
> > 
> > I'm not sure which ordering you mean there, but for clarity: I'm
> > describing how big the delta is in behaviour [its tiny] so that we can
> > actually assess the cost of giving the two behaviours different base
> > names vs different qualifiers.
> > 
> > > I can go on at length for why this should happen. I can refer to the
> > > requirements of good writing (clear & internally consistant). I can
> > > explain that writing is dependant upon terminology in the terms of
> > > building blocks and stable foundations.  I can remind you of the mandate
> > > that Bazaar-NG be easy to use is dependent upon Bazaar-NG being easy to
> > > learn.  I can even provide numbers if thats what it takes.  Explaining
> > > need for the change is easy.
> > 
> > Not really. Good writing is orthogonal to this issue - it needs to be
> > good however we choose; choosing stable terminology is also orthogonal -
> > once we take a position, we keep it - thats easy. Having this easy to
> > learn is *what* this discussion is about. 
> 
> Ok. We're on the same page for goals. =)
> 
> > > What I can not do is express why you're against this. There seems to be
> > > general, but not unanimous,  agreement that changing the terminology
> > > somehow would help when it comes to describing Bazaar-NG to others.
> > > 
> > > Can you please enumerate your concerns for changing the terminology for
> > > 'shared repository' ?
> > 
> > If we make this into a new concept when it does not need to be then we:
> >  * Raise the bar for understanding bzr for new users
> >  * Make it harder to explain 
> >  * Make it harder to reconcile the external and internal behaviour which
> > will impact the number of contributors that make the transition from
> > user to developer/hacker.
> 
> I can see your point when it comes to the third bulletpoint. A conceptual
> model that doesn't match the API model would raise the bar from going from
> user to hacker.  I'm not sure why you listed the two former bullet points;
> that is the two arguments that Jan and I have been making all along!
> 
> 
>                       Repositories in Bazaar-NG
> Repositories in      ,--------------------------.
>   CVS / SVN          |     Repository Concept   |
>  ,------------.      |  ,---------------------. |
>  |Repositories|<------->| Shared Repositories |<--AKA. 
>  `------------'      |  `---------------------' |  shared storage 
>                      |  ,---------------------. |  bzr make-repository
>                      |  |Unshared Repositories|<--AKA
>                      |  `---------------------' |  standalone branches 
>                      `--------------------------'                     
> 
> 
> The problem is that the concept of repository in CVS/SVN and the concept
> of repository in Bazaar-NG does not map well. The closest thing to a
> CVS/SVN repository in the Bazaar-NG world is a Shared repository. So, when
> you write docs for a CVS/SVN user and teach them Bazaar-NG from what they
> know, you have to say "The repositories you were used to in CVS/SVN are
> now called sahred repositories." That leaves open a logical fallacy
> (begging-the-question to be precise because there's no yin without a yang)
> of what an "unshared repository" is. 
> 
> Documents are different than code. The user can try and read documents in
> any order they wish. That means every document has to define every term it
> uses. This in turn means that every time repositories are mentioned in
> docs....
> 
> Oh, never mind. You want to call them sahred repositories, we'll call them
> shared repositories.

I'd add that I see there are two understandings of 'repository' in CVS/SVN --
either as 'collection of branches' or as 'storage for revision data'. Both
are equally valid in CVS/SVN, but each maps to different concept in bzr. So
neither choice is perfect and in either case it has to be precisely described
in the docs.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060304/990d77c0/attachment.pgp