Obsolete Terminology

[Sean Farley]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 08:01:06PM -0400, Greg Ward wrote:
>> > |                     |                          | **conflicting**             |
>
>> > |                     |                          |                             |
>> > |                     |                          | *conflicting* is changeset  |
>> > |                     |                          | that appears when multiple  |
>> > |                     |                          | changesets are successors   |
>> > |                     |                          | of the same precursor.      |
>>
>> Hmmm. I'm torn on this. I completely understand why these two
>> successors are considered "conflicting" (alternately, "in conflict").
>> But the word "conflict" is pretty much taken already: it's what
>> happens when I have to merge two revisions of a file with overlapping
>> changes. You know, back in boring old-fashioned *first* order version
>> control. ;-) I'm leery of using the same word for subtly related but
>> distinct concepts.
>
> Well, what do you think of
>
> - clashing ?  (I like this one)
> - rival ?     (bonus for not ending with "ing")
> - colliding ? (meh, too close to conflicting)
> - discording ?

I disagree with Greg on this issue. As an experiment, I introduced
this concept (and issue with 'conflict' naming) to some of my
colleagues and no one was at all tripped up. Of course, this is no
proof but it seems the use of the word 'conflict' is natural in this
context.