Yes, we should make the API consistent with itself and, preferably,
the UI, too.  I prefer "editions" because, unlike revisions, it's
semantically inclusive of the earliest element, which isn't a revision
of anything.  However, that's pretty nitpicky and it seems Avi got
there first with "revisions".

I'll try to do that with the MC Configuration fix later today.  Thanks
for the feedback!  :)

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "repository editions" is finally permanent!
>
>
> Nice!
>
>>
>> The 'mc history' menu was recently renamed to "browse repository
>> editions" because its only "history" if its retrieving them from the
>> trunk repository.
>
>
> I just published a tiny improvement: It now shows the timestamp and category
> in the editions list, just like in a method's version history.
>
> Right after publishing I noticed we have two terms in the code base:
> "revisions" and now "editions". "Revisions" is an old term (Avi's method has
> a 2002 timestamp) but captures the intent just as well as "editions" I'd
> think. Maybe we would like to use that in the UI, too?
>
> Actually I may have just introduced "edition" into the code base, in your
> code it's mostly named "history". Well, it's all fresh so we can fix it
> while it's hot. What do you think?
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>