> Actually it does solve a real problem. Between Eliot, Igor, and myself,
> not one of us knew enough to use a good naming convention in the VMMaker
> project. Thus we missed an opportunity to have the branches displayed
> more clearly in the browser.

Ok, but that reinforces my point that it's a tool shortfall that can't
display the _real_ branches; you had to rely on filename sorting to
see the individual branches clearly.  But if one of you had accidently
used the naming convention of one of your peers on your own branch, MC
would "incorrectly" display that version intermingled in your own
"branch", because the real branch is determined by the ancestry, not
the name.

Colin wrote:

> And that's all a "branch" is in MC - a bunch
> of versions that are grouped together in the UI.

No, a branch is based on the ancestry, regardless of how they're
grouped in the UI.

I understand we WANT separate branches to be grouped in the UI, but
currently they aren't.  I think it would be nice if the tools could do
it; for example, maybe a hierarchy where only the most-current "leaf"
versions of each branch are displayed, but they could be expanded to
show their list of immediate ancestors.

> So even if this is just a naming hack,
> and even if it should only be taken as a suggestion for future users,
> it still would be helpful to document it.

I think it should be "documented" as accessing methods in MCVersionName.

 - Chris