We're almost ready to finalize the new mercurial repository for the future Mozilla 2 work, the repository is up and running with automated merges from the CVS trunk. The one remaining question is what the main Mozilla 2 branch should be named. "trunk" would be the obvious name as that's what we've been using for the CVS HEAD branch since forever, but that potentially causes confusion between the two. The alternative that was picked was "mozilla2-trunk" to disambiguate from the CVS naming, but that locks the name of the repository to Mozilla 2, and hopefully there will be life after Mozilla 2 as well and then that name doesn't necessarily make sense. Renaming a mercurial repository is trivial, but why even go there if we can find a name up front that will outlive any one version.
This all came out of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377434 where I disagreed with the mozilla2-trunk naming, if others have thoughts on this please see the bug for more discussion and comment in the bug please.
> We're almost ready to finalize the new mercurial repository for the > future Mozilla 2 work, the repository is up and running with automated > merges from the CVS trunk. The one remaining question is what the main > Mozilla 2 branch should be named. "trunk" would be the obvious name as > that's what we've been using for the CVS HEAD branch since forever, but > that potentially causes confusion between the two. The alternative that > was picked was "mozilla2-trunk" to disambiguate from the CVS naming, but > that locks the name of the repository to Mozilla 2, and hopefully there > will be life after Mozilla 2 as well and then that name doesn't > necessarily make sense. Renaming a mercurial repository is trivial, but > why even go there if we can find a name up front that will outlive any > one version.
> This all came out of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377434 > where I disagreed with the mozilla2-trunk naming, if others have > thoughts on this please see the bug for more discussion and comment in > the bug please.
Will this trunk always stay in sync with the cvs trunk? At least until we EOL the cvs repository. If so, calling them the same doesn't seem like a problem to me.
An alternative name would be 'hgtrunk', but that too seems like a bad idea if it's going to get out of sync with the cvs trunk.
> We're almost ready to finalize the new mercurial repository for the > future Mozilla 2 work, the repository is up and running with automated > merges from the CVS trunk. The one remaining question is what the main > Mozilla 2 branch should be named. "trunk" would be the obvious name as > that's what we've been using for the CVS HEAD branch since forever, but > that potentially causes confusion between the two. The alternative that > was picked was "mozilla2-trunk" to disambiguate from the CVS naming, but > that locks the name of the repository to Mozilla 2, and hopefully there > will be life after Mozilla 2 as well and then that name doesn't > necessarily make sense. Renaming a mercurial repository is trivial, but > why even go there if we can find a name up front that will outlive any > one version.
My preference would be "trunk". Where necessary I'd hope people can use "hg trunk"/"mozilla2 trunk" or "cvs trunk" to disambiguate.
Johnny Stenback wrote: > We're almost ready to finalize the new mercurial repository for the > future Mozilla 2 work, the repository is up and running with automated > merges from the CVS trunk. The one remaining question is what the main > Mozilla 2 branch should be named. "trunk" would be the obvious name as > that's what we've been using for the CVS HEAD branch since forever, > but that potentially causes confusion between the two. The alternative > that was picked was "mozilla2-trunk" to disambiguate from the CVS > naming, but that locks the name of the repository to Mozilla 2, and > hopefully there will be life after Mozilla 2 as well and then that > name doesn't necessarily make sense. Renaming a mercurial repository > is trivial, but why even go there if we can find a name up front that > will outlive any one version.
"xulrunner" (and a separate "browser" repo, obviously).
After this all started there's been some comments in the bug and some discussions on IRC etc. Robert Sayre suggested the name "mozilla-central" in the bug, and while I'm not completely in love with that name, it would work fine with me. It avoids the whole "trunk" name, doesn't repeat "hg", etc etc.
> We're almost ready to finalize the new mercurial repository for the > future Mozilla 2 work, the repository is up and running with automated > merges from the CVS trunk. The one remaining question is what the main > Mozilla 2 branch should be named. "trunk" would be the obvious name as > that's what we've been using for the CVS HEAD branch since forever, but > that potentially causes confusion between the two. The alternative that > was picked was "mozilla2-trunk" to disambiguate from the CVS naming, but > that locks the name of the repository to Mozilla 2, and hopefully there > will be life after Mozilla 2 as well and then that name doesn't > necessarily make sense. Renaming a mercurial repository is trivial, but > why even go there if we can find a name up front that will outlive any > one version.
> This all came out of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377434 > where I disagreed with the mozilla2-trunk naming, if others have > thoughts on this please see the bug for more discussion and comment in > the bug please.
The words "nexus" or "crux" came to mind. And they both have an 'x', which makes them quite alluring. :)
[EG, "mozilla-nexus", "moz-crux", etc.]
And Google defines "crux" as: 1. The basic, central, or critical point or feature: the crux of the matter; the crux of an argument. 2. A puzzling or apparently insoluble problem.
Judge for yourself which definition fits Mozilla better!
Justin Dolske wrote: > The words "nexus" or "crux" came to mind. And they both have an 'x', > which makes them quite alluring. :)
But both imply a point rather than a continuation, as "trunk" does.
Can't we just use "trunk", and disambiguate in conversation as necessary? It's standard source-control terminology. And people will talk about "the Mozilla 2 trunk" whether you call the module that or not.
If not, then how about using a different natural metaphor which has branches (after a fashion), and picking "river", "stream", or "mainstream"?
Gervase Markham wrote: > Justin Dolske wrote: >> The words "nexus" or "crux" came to mind. And they both have an 'x', >> which makes them quite alluring. :)
> But both imply a point rather than a continuation, as "trunk" does.
> Can't we just use "trunk", and disambiguate in conversation as > necessary? It's standard source-control terminology. And people will > talk about "the Mozilla 2 trunk" whether you call the module that or not.
As I noted in the bug, the confusion of having two "main things" without a version number is going to be hard to document and keep from becoming confusing.
Johnny argues that locking the name to "Mozilla 2" is a bad thing, because it limits our options after Mozilla 2. I believe that versioned naming is a good thing, and does not limit our options at all:
1) In the distributed VCS world, there doesn't need to be a single "trunk" from which all things branch. The mozilla2-trunk name indicates clearly what the goal of this tree is.
2) If/when we get to "Mozilla 3", we can and probably should clone the existing tree with a new name for major development, just as we have for mozilla 2. Therefore ongoing development would happen on "mozilla3-trunk". The mozilla3-trunk can merge/track the mozilla2-trunk for as long as necessary, just like any feature branch would.
3) trees are easy to rename or clone to a new location
Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > 1) In the distributed VCS world, there doesn't need to be a single "trunk" > from which all things branch. The mozilla2-trunk name indicates clearly what > the goal of this tree is.
I definitely agree. The concept of "one branch that continues on, forever and ever, amen" is alien to most DCVSes. We should embrace the new DVCS model wholly, being wishy-washy about it will only lead to pain later.
Colin Barrett wrote: > Benjamin Smedberg wrote: >> 1) In the distributed VCS world, there doesn't need to be a single >> "trunk" >> from which all things branch. The mozilla2-trunk name indicates >> clearly what >> the goal of this tree is.
> I definitely agree. The concept of "one branch that continues on, > forever and ever, amen" is alien to most DCVSes. We should embrace the > new DVCS model wholly, being wishy-washy about it will only lead to pain > later.
I'm not sure that changing the "this is what you want"-repository every now and then is a good idea. And however alien that concept might be to DVCSes, I don't see a way around answering that question.
Nor do I think we should add new funky terms like crux or nexus. They're neither obvious nor really known across languages and cultures.
Axel Hecht wrote: > Colin Barrett wrote: >> Benjamin Smedberg wrote: >>> 1) In the distributed VCS world, there doesn't need to be a single >>> "trunk" >>> from which all things branch. The mozilla2-trunk name indicates >>> clearly what >>> the goal of this tree is.
>> I definitely agree. The concept of "one branch that continues on, >> forever and ever, amen" is alien to most DCVSes. We should embrace the >> new DVCS model wholly, being wishy-washy about it will only lead to >> pain later.
> I'm not sure that changing the "this is what you want"-repository every > now and then is a good idea. And however alien that concept might be to > DVCSes, I don't see a way around answering that question.
> Nor do I think we should add new funky terms like crux or nexus. They're > neither obvious nor really known across languages and cultures.
> Axel
Nor is 'trunk'. When I was new to the project, I treated it much more as a concept 'an sich' than as a metaphor. It was only later that I realized there was actually a point behind the name. So to be honest, I don't think the i18n aspect of this is particularly pressing unless whatever the new proposed name will be is exceptionally vulgar or affronting in some language we care about :-)
On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, Johnny Stenback <j...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> After this all started there's been some comments in the bug and some > discussions on IRC etc. Robert Sayre suggested the name > "mozilla-central" in the bug, and while I'm not completely in love with > that name, it would work fine with me. It avoids the whole "trunk" name, > doesn't repeat "hg", etc etc.
I'm ok with mozilla2-trunk or mozilla-central. Sounds like no one needs hg, not everyone wants 2 in the name (even though Benjamin and Colin are spot on about DVCS development), and trunk may be less helpful to non-English-as-first-language speakers.
Really, we just need to pick one and go. Anyone mind if I do that? I'm favoring mozilla-central.
bren...@mozilla.org wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, Johnny Stenback <j...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> After this all started there's been some comments in the bug and some >> discussions on IRC etc. Robert Sayre suggested the name >> "mozilla-central" in the bug, and while I'm not completely in love with >> that name, it would work fine with me. It avoids the whole "trunk" name, >> doesn't repeat "hg", etc etc.
> I'm ok with mozilla2-trunk or mozilla-central. Sounds like no one > needs hg, not everyone wants 2 in the name (even though Benjamin and > Colin are spot on about DVCS development), and trunk may be less > helpful to non-English-as-first-language speakers.
> Really, we just need to pick one and go. Anyone mind if I do that? I'm > favoring mozilla-central.
mozilla2-central is the better of the two IMO, since it doesn't shadow the existing term "trunk."
Remember, we can clone or move the name of this repo at pretty much any time, I don't think this is that big of a deal, compared to the other issues facing our Hg setup right now.
bren...@mozilla.org wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, Johnny Stenback <j...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> After this all started there's been some comments in the bug and some >> discussions on IRC etc. Robert Sayre suggested the name >> "mozilla-central" in the bug, and while I'm not completely in love with >> that name, it would work fine with me. It avoids the whole "trunk" name, >> doesn't repeat "hg", etc etc.
> I'm ok with mozilla2-trunk or mozilla-central. Sounds like no one > needs hg, not everyone wants 2 in the name (even though Benjamin and > Colin are spot on about DVCS development), and trunk may be less > helpful to non-English-as-first-language speakers.
*mozilla2-central* or maybe *mozilla2-base* will be fine to my non-English-as-first-language ears ;)
> Really, we just need to pick one and go. Anyone mind if I do that? I'm > favoring mozilla-central.
> /be
Not using a version number (2 in this case) in the name will be fine, because a new repository will be cloned from the main (aka mozilla-central) repository and the old one renamed to lets say mozillaN-central? And that way mozilla-central can always be the main/central development repository, until of course you'll want to change it for something else.
