[darcs-users] renaming the rerecord command

[David Roundy]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:20:10PM +0000, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 2004-10-18, Tommy Pettersson <ptp at lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> >
> > To rename it to 'update' could cause confusion with the very different
> > cvs command.  I suggests 'amend' if it should be renamed.  'rerecord'
> > makes you think of it as a 'record', but since it is a "dangerous"
> > command, it might be better to think of it as an amendment.  What do
> > others think?
> 
> 'amend' is a nice short word that describes well the function. 
> 
> However 'rerecord', like 'unrecord', includes the word 'record' in it's
> name, which let you know that it is clearly related.  I'm not sure how
> important that is, though.
...
> I admit I was confused when I first came across 'rerecord' and agree
> 'amend' is better name.

Hmmmm.  I think amend sounds reasonable.  I do like the fact that rerecord
has the word "record" in it, but this is a very easy mistake to make, and I
certainly find myself telling people to unrecord a patch and then rerecord
it, and I don't mean to use "rerecord".  Since it's quite a new command,
I'm amenable to changing it's name even this close to 1.0.0, but would like
a bit more discussion, in case other people find "amend" confusing, or like
"rerecord".
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.abridgegame.org