Or that I used the generic term rather than the git-specific term?

I don't know if you're intentionally trolling, but I have been using version control for almost 20 years now and have never used the term check-in. All version control software that I've used in that time used the term commit.

Perforce, TFS, Subversion, and Mercurial all use or recognize "check in" at least as a verb, and "changeset" at least used to be common as a noun.

I'm well aware of that, but the ggp was arguing that "check in" is a generic term and "commit" isn't. That's pretty obviously nonsense.

Uh, where? I said "check in" is a generic term (which it is - it's listed as the first synonym for 'commit' here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_control#Common_vocabul... ). I never mentioned the term "commit" (which is obviously also a common term for the same action). Then you suggested I was trolling, for saying it was a generic term, which it is. Now you're putting words in my mouth and calling them nonsense.

Please stop.

Here's what you wrote:

> Or that I used the generic term rather than the git-specific term?

In the context of the discussion, generic term refers to "check in", and git-specific term refers to "commit" (which is the only possible alternative term to be using in that context). The obvious reading is that you're calling "commit" a git-specific term.

So I wouldn't say I'm putting words into your mouth, unless you were unaware that "commit" is the correct alternative term, which is of course a possibility that I didn't consider.