Getting Started with Bazaar presentation updated (and ready for the masses)

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> You probably should use 'send them a "merge directive"' rather than 'send them
>> a "bundle"'. I personally prefer the term bundle, but as it has been used once,
>> and we are now superseding it with something else... MD is more accurate, and
>> handles the fact that the request doesn't even have to have the revision data.
> 
> Yeah, I'd be happy with some friendier term for "merge directive".
> 


Smürf
Sexy Merging Über Revision Format

Let me send you a smürf. How could it be friendlier than that?

If I had my choice, I would probably call them bundles, and just rename what we
currently have as a bundle.

At one point, we discussed using the term 'basket' to go along with our weaving
names. (though I think it was discussed for shared repositories.)

Merge directive is actually very good from a technical perspective. Merge
request would also be close, but suffers from still being 2 names (and not much
better than directive.)

Changeset?

Aggregate
Group
ChangeGroup
Pack
Slice
Hit (let me send you a hit)
Piece
Section
GoR (Gathering of Revisions)
Request
Merge Pack
...

I can't say I like any of them more than MD or Bundle. But sometimes
brainstorming leads to something.

> 
>> On the SVN slide you have "dumb merging" and "dumb renaming". I might suggest
>> "simple merging". Though we really want "overly simple merging".
> 
> Perhaps "limited merging / limited renaming" conveys the intent without
> being overly pejorative?
> 
> Aaron

Sounds good to me.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHFPjQJdeBCYSNAAMRAi+DAKDTC6siW1lcCaXfP50rYufXw1RHJgCfV1j5
IJDAe7oyvd5SEDAbfHnDHqM=
=8DXq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----