[darcs-users] Command renamings and hide/show

[Will]

Kenneth Knowles <kknowles at berkeley.edu> writes:

> I'll give my votes:
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:08:45AM -0700, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> >* Rename 'repository' to 'branch' throughout
>>
>> I agree with the other poster that people have negative connotations 
>> with branches. 
>
> I like repository, because the word "branch" exists to distinguish it from
> "trunk" which would be the default.  So "branch" implies an exceptional state
> to some degree, which is not the case in darcs.

I like repository too, I only use the word "branch" to explain things
to CVS users.  When I am using darcs, every copy of repository is just
that, not a "branch".  It would be very confusing and misleading to me
to have all of the --repo-* switches renamed to --branch-*

>> >* Make the default to be as verbose as possible, and offer -q /
>> 
>> Yes, probably.
>
> I like this, but don't feel strongly about it.

I don't feel strongly either, but I do think darcs already outputs
just enough information so you know what is going on without being
overloaded.

>  
>> >* The default should be that no patch is deleted without a warning
>> 
>> I think so.
>
> I like this too, though overriding it would be necessary for scripting.

Maybe a preference to warn, it would bother me to see it all the time
when I already know what is going on.

>> >* It should be easy to temporarily get a patch out of the way,
>> 
>> I don't think this should be in 1.0.
>
> Whatever works for the maintainers.  I've never had a desire to use this.

I haven't had a desire to use this either.

>> >  get           "branch" or "mkbranch", with explicit option --and-
>> 
>> I like having 'get' as a separate command from 'pull'. At least in my 
>> mind, one creates a repo, but the other one adds to an existing repo.
>
> "get" is easy to understand and concise, I'm strongly opposed to
> changing it.  I agree with Kevin's rationale as well.

I definitely do not want this to change, "get" means get.  Some large
percentage of the time, a person getting a repo just wants a copy,
they don't intend to work on a "branch".  If the command was "branch",
I would go looking for a "get"-type command.

>> >  inittree      "branch --root" or "branch --trunk" or just "trunk" or
>> 
>> initrepo or just init or initialize might be better.

I take advantage of darcs' command searching to just type "init" most of
the time, but I am happy with the full name too.

> I like just "init" because it is just as clear, and less characters :-)
> Also, you dodge the whore repo/branch/tree vocabulary mess. 
>
>> >  unpull        "unrecord --and-delete" or something like that,
>> 
>> Yes.
>
> I concur

I guess this would be ok, but unpull has a nice symmetry that I like.

>> > * send->export and apply->import: this has more symmetry, and removes
>> >   the strange "send --output" combination.
>> 
>> Seems reasonable, but I don't have strong feelings about it.
>
> I too do not feel strongly about it.  I think the intuition of "send" might be
> nice, but I've never used it.

I definitely dislike this change, "export" could mean anything that creates
a patchset that can be imported by someone else, I would not expect it to
"send" an email.

>> > * add->control and remove->uncontrol: this removes any confusion
>> >   between "darcs remove" and "rm".  (Or perhaps "ignore" instead of
>> >   "uncontrol", but that has less symmetry.)
>> 
>> Archipel uses "track" and "untrack", which I like. But I'm not convinced 
>> this needs to be changed.
>
> I strongly dislike this change.  "add" and "remove" are nicely
> symmetrical, and its very common (and easy to deduce even if you
> didn't know before) that source control will leave a file even when
> it has relinquished control.

I strongly dislike this change as well, "add" and "remove" are a much
clearer explanation of what is going on.

Perhaps I am in the minority here, but from the very beginning I've felt
very comfortable with darcs' command set.  The current commands are what
I would expect, and work as I expect.  There is probably some room for
improvement, adding "send" was a great move, but I'm against a full scale
renaming.

Regards,
Will