Calling branches "branches" is misleading


Coming from Git and Subversion this feature was difficult for me to understand. In those systems the analogy makes sense because you can draw the repository history as a bunch of timelines that are related to a main timeline (except when you create an orphan branch and then the analogy doesn’t make sense anymore).

After I read that in Pijul branches are just sets of patches I got quite confused and I didn’t understand what was its purpose. I had to read about spontaneous (non-)branches in Darcs before everything clicked.

So I wonder why not rename the feature? I think set is a good name because that’s what they are but if we want an analogy why not pool or workspace? This would make the fork and prune (I read that’s how delete-branch will be renamed) subcommands a little longer (because we would need something like new-pool or new-set or whatever) but I think the mental model is more important.

And of course this is matter of opinion. Maybe someone will get the concept faster than me but in any case I think it is better to be precise (and that’s the reason that patches are called patches and not commits)

Edit: I think state could work too