[PATCH] A working copy is not called a 'repository'

[Daniel Shahaf]

Trying to root out new users' tendency to call a wc a repos, or, more
realistically, to have something to link them to when they make that
mistake.

The last sentence could use some wordsmithing to avoid letting the
reader infer that confusion is common.  What I mean to say is that new
users often use the wrong term, not that "which term should I use?" is
a common question among experienced users.

[[[
* ch01-fundamental-concepts.xml
  (svn.basic.working-copy.sb-repository-term): New sidebar.
]]]

Index: ch01-fundamental-concepts.xml
===================================================================
--- ch01-fundamental-concepts.xml	(revision 4515)
+++ ch01-fundamental-concepts.xml	(working copy)
@@ -131,6 +131,21 @@
         its contents to and from the repository falls squarely to the
         version control system's client software.</para>
 
+        <sidebar id="svn.basic.working-copy.sb-repository-term">
+          <title>A Working Copy is not called a "Repository"</title>
+
+          <para>In Subversion, the object which every user of the system
+            has—the collection of versioned files, along with metadata
+            that enables the system to track them and communicate with the
+            server—is called a <emphasis>working copy</emphasis>, and
+            the server-side object is called a
+            <emphasis>repository</emphasis>.  Although other version control
+            systems use the term "repository" for the client-side object,
+            using the term "repository" that way in Subversion context is wrong
+            and a common source of confusion.</para>
+
+        </sidebar>
+
     </sect2>
 
     <!-- =============================================================== -->