RE: VC filesets

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> The idea was that filesets.el would be a general facility for 
> file sets and that we would make other things work with it.

Yes, I realize that. But it is not that general. And things haven't really
worked out that way. And regardless of what one might think of that particular
example, the general terminology issues that were raised remain.

It doesn't matter, for example, that bookmarks.el *is* quite general and could
be extended to include things that might be found in other "bookmarks" libraries
available here and there. Independent libraries get developed with different or
similar features - or even virtually identical features that are implemented
differently. In many cases they will always remain separate, rather than being
incorporated (into bookmarks.el for example).

The problems I raised are (only) about terminology, not about implementation,
features, or packaging. It's about how to talk about features, not about how to
integrate or assimilate them.

Using more specific names can help avoid some of the problems. Using file names
that are different from general feature names can help too. But I don't see a
general solution to the terminology problems.

In the case Glenn initially raised, VC filesets, presumably a solution could be
found, because VC filesets and filesets.el filesets are both part of Emacs. I
take his observation as a suggestion that VC filesets should be called something
else. That would take care of this particular occurrence of the problem.

Or perhaps, following your remark above, VC filesets should be somehow
integrated with filesets.el filesets, since the latter feature is the intended
"general facility for file sets". I can't speak to that, knowing nothing about
VC filesets.