[darcs-users] Do we want a 'put' command? (was: Re: "push" to create a new repository?)

[Andrew Wagner]

Since darcs doesn't really support the "recursive" way of doing things 
at the moment, I find myself creating and moving around a lot of 
repositories indeed.  At least for me, it will be the difference 
between the following sequences of thought/action:

<darcs put>

"hmmm I want to put this repository on my server.  Now what was the 
command for putting a repository on a server?"
darcs --help
" yes, of course! put! "
darcs put awagner at foobar.uiuc.edu:newrepodir

<darcs get --put or darcs init --put>
"hmmm I want to put this repository on my server.  Now what was the 
command for putting a repo on a server?
darcs --help
"Darn...  don't see a command, looks like I'll have to log into the 
server and do a get from server side, or ftp the files by hand..."
ssh awagner at foobar.uiuc.edu
cd repodir
darcs get

or maybe if i'm clever...
"hmmm I want to put this repository on my server.  Now what was the 
command for putting a repo on a server?
darcs --help
"Darn...  don't see a command for that...  this is open source command 
line software; I wonder if they hid it as a parameter in some other 
function"
darcs push --help
"Reading... Nope..."
darcs init --help
"Reading... Nope..."
darcs get --help
"Reading... Hmmm... Why the heck would "put" be a subcommand of get?
darcs get --put awagner at foobar.uiuc.edu:repodir

Still a bigger fan of a symmetric "darcs put" command instead of hiding 
important functionality in a subcommand.

On Feb 19, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Mark Stosberg wrote:

> On 2005-02-19, David Roundy <droundy at abridgegame.org> wrote:
>>> =20
>>> I think he wants a new command called 'put', symmetric to get.
>>> =20
>>> If I understand darcs correctly push and pull are only about 
>>> exchanging
>>> patchsets. 'Get' on the other hand fetches a whole repository from
>>> another source (not only the patchsets). So we would need some sort 
>>> of
>>> =20
>>> darcs put
>>> =20
>>> to send a whole repository to another place.
>>
>> Hmmmm.  I don't like adding new commands, but a put command does seem 
>> like
>> a reasonable addition.  I'd rather see some more discussion here on 
>> -users,
>> though, before adding a command.
>
> I vote 'no'. Get/Put isn't one of the frequently used commands,
> and there are other reasonably fast and intuitive alternatives, such
> as the init/push combo someone else suggested.
>
> Right now 'init' has virtually no options, but there is discussion 
> about
> that changing. Because 'get' also 'inits', whatever complexity is added
> to 'init' may creep into get and 'put' as well.
>
> I do agree that 'put' would save a bit of time now and then, but I'm 
> not
> sure it's worth the complexity.
>
>     Mark
>
> -- 
> http://mark.stosberg.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> darcs-users mailing list
> darcs-users at darcs.net
> http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
>
Drew Wagner
UIUC ECE Grad Student
Swing Society Photographer
604 W. Nevada #3,  Urbana
Home: (217) 344-5581
Work: (217) 244-6626
AIM: drewillini