Pijul

Calling branches "branches" is misleading


#1

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