On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:09:36AM -0500, Richard Lowe wrote: > > A somewhat off-topic comment: should we really call merge errors > > 'turds'? I know that's what the gatekeepers call the problem, but our > > developer tools haven't previously used that word, as far as I know. > > At least in some places, I think that scatological term might be > > somewhat (and needlessly) offensive. > > I asked this at the time, and while one person did say something much > like the above, everyone else's view was that it was the common term > in use. I'd say if you feel strongly enough that it should be > changed, come up with alternate but equally understandable/common > wording and file a bug.
In patch(1) terms they're called "rejected hunks", or simply "rejects". I guess I was surprised by the "turd" term, too, when I picked up the cdm source for the first time yesterday. How about another cdm question: What will be the equivalent of "wx putback" for internal ON/NV developers? Or is this simply a naked "hg commit"? Dean
