Re: Versioning terminology
At 11:50 -0800 20-02-1997, Judith Slein wrote:
>If we let our terminology be "version tree" and "member of a version tree",
>the requirements start looking something like this:
>184.108.40.206. Referring to a version tree. There should be a way to refer to a
>version tree as a whole. Some queries do not apply only to one member of a
>version tree, but to the version tree as a whole. Furthermore, some
>operations may affect all members of the tree, rather than any specific
>member. In these cases, a way to refer to the whole version tree is required.
>220.127.116.11. Referring to specific members of a version tree. There should be a
>way to refer to each member of a version tree. This means that each member
>of the tree is itself a resource. This is required for version-specific
>linking, and for non-versioning client support.
Not considering style, I think I like it. It is much clearer this way,
although repetitions and allitterations may cause the prose to be more
obscure and hard to read than necessary. If there is a way for improving
the readability, for instance introducing neologisms such as vtree and
movert, then it could look like:
18.104.22.168. Referring to a version tree. There should be a way to refer to a
version tree as a whole. Some queries do not apply only to one member of a
vtree, but to the version tree as a whole. Furthermore, some
operations may affect all moverts, rather than any specific
member. In these cases, a way to refer to the whole vtree is required.
But, again, it's just style, and we have different tastes and it's not my
language anyway, so what am I complaining about?
Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly,
Dept of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?'
Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
e-mail: email@example.com Man got to tell himself he understand.