On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:06:15AM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote: > >>1) Don't you think "tree-id" command is misnamed? Use "tree-rev" > >> name if you feel "tree-revision" is not short enough (I don't > >> feel so). > > > > > >I concur. > > Yeah, me too. Though as I've mentioned, tree-rev is misleading too, > because it's really the comparison revision, and your tree may be > utterly different from that revision. More like tree-last-revision.
Or 'tree reference revision', shortened somehow.
'tree-id' implies the entirely wrong thing to me, IMO, since using
'id' in conjunction with 'tree' makes me think of a unique identifier
for that tree, when it's in fact just the 'revision ID'.
Here, omitting 'ID' ('tree-revision') makes more sense to me than
omitting 'revision' ('tree-id'), even if the former has the misleading
aspects mentioned by Aaron.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
