[darcs-users] Re: argh. please change the name "unpull"

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Fri Mar 18 10:34:23 UTC 2005


Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Hi guys!
> >
> > I just read through this thread and:
> >
> > - I am a darcs n00b which is good in this respect. :)
> >
> > - "unapply" sounds like it will somehow only affect the file tree (given
> > a n00b that easily thinks of the filetree instead of that list of
> > patches). This is also a problem with "apply" since it leads a n00b to
> > thinking in regular terms - with old tools you also "apply" a good ol
> > patch, but that doesn't "add" the patch or anything, it just "applies"
> > it. I know these arguments are based on misconceptions of the n00b, but
> > I think they are still valid.
> >
> > - That leaves "erase", "forget" and "discard" of those I read.
> >
> > Of these three "forget" seems a bit vague to me and doesn't necessarily
> > imply that stuff is indeed deleted. I think I would prefer "discard" or
> > "delete", both those imply clearly that, hey, things are getting toasted
> > here. :)
> And is it really intuitive to you that after wrong usage of `pull' you
> should use `delete' especially when you know that for wrong usage of
> `record' you can use `unrecord' ?
> My main worry is about how to keep darcs to be so easy (read intuitive)
> for use in comparison with other SCMs...

Well, let me say that "unpull" is also fine with me - as long as we make
really sure that the texts shown with "darcs help" etc are good.

So the principle of having un-xxx as being the exact opposite operation
is of course also helpful. And for a n00b pull is the likely opposite
(when you start using push and apply, you have learned more), so given
that - yes, unpull is perhaps quite good after all. :)
> Thanks,
> Karel

regards, Göran

More information about the darcs-users mailing list