I remember reading about "vendor" branches in the cvs documentation (probably in the early 2000s), which if I recall correctly were trying to solve a similar problem to sub-modules in git. So I don't think the Rubyists invented the term.
The Subversion book covers the concept of vendor branches extensively:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.advanced.vendorbr.htm...
That's where I first read the term, but it predates svn. As far as I know, it's been the common term for committing external dependencies to your own VCS for as long as there's been such a thing as a VCS.
Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go
by lavamantis on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @09:40PM
(#8456807)
We are Nodeists (not nudists - to the best of my knowledge) - we like to use the term "shrinkwrap."
Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go
by jacques_chester on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @11:11PM
(#8457014)
Shrinkwrap isn't quite the same. npm install --save seems to be the closest equivalent, based on discussions I've had with people.
Vendoring means having the physical source code on hand. Not version numbers, not SHAs -- actual checked-out code.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that it's possible you're using Ruby lingo and not general-purpose tech terms. I could be wrong, maybe I just missed the boat.
I think "bundle everything" might make sense to everybody, including Rubyists.