[darcs-users] Re: questions on development process

[Ketil Malde]

David Roundy <droundy at abridgegame.org> writes:


> I think the distinction is that you may not have the right to modify the
> target repo, or perhaps not even the desire to modify the target repo, when
> you do a send.  

IIRC, the transition back then was from

  push             -> send
  push --and-apply -> push

I like the separation into different commands, but I think old system 
is clearer in showing what's going on.

> Basically, send is usually used to communicate with a person, while
> push always communicates with a repository, and most people see
> "push" as being opposite of "pull", and wouldn't think to use it to
> communicate with a person.

I suggested naming send "submit", since at least to me, "send" is too
much associated with the transport medium (e-mail).  You can easily
imagine "send"ing via ftp (scp, http PUT, etc) to an "incoming"
directory.  IMHO "submit" makes it clearer we're aiming at a person to
accept or reject it.

> One could rename get to clone, which would mimic BK

An alternative could be "branch", which would also hint at 
that functionality - old CVS users think branching is something nasty
and complex, this is one way to show them it's not.

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants