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

[Daniel Shahaf]

C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 21:35:56 -0400:
> On 07/02/2013 05:08 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 13:59:34 -0400:
> >> I like the idea here, but I think it's being introduced too early.  Chapter
> >> 1 introduces concepts in a layered manner.  The first section is split into
> >> two subsections, "Version Control Basics" and "Version Control the
> >> Subversion Way".  I'd rather see your sidebar in the latter subsection, when
> >> it's more "okay" to talk about Subversion specifically.  (But I'll grant
> > Okay.  So how about moving the sidebar to the very end of
> > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.in-action.html#svn.basic.in-action.wc
> > ?  Should I send a new patch?
> 
> Nah.  If you're okay with my moving it, I'll just add your sidebar in the
> new location.
> 

+1

> > BTW, I considered also adding a clarification about "^/project and
> > ^/project/trunk are not called a 'repository', either", but decided
> > against it.
> 
> Yeah, there's a certainly level of clue that the book expects.  There will
> always be edge cases in the readership of folks who cling to some bit of
> false knowledge (unwittingly or otherwise).  We can't possible address all
> such instances.

True, but my logic was different: the confusion stemming from
a non-server-admin referring to ^/subversion as a repository would be
minimal (indeed, whether /repos or /repos/asf or /repos/asf/subversion
is the repository root can be considered an implementation detail, from
the user's perspective), and a server admin would presumably know
better (at least, once he crosses the 'Why doesn't `ls /srv/repos/calc`
show a 'trunk' dir?' stage).