[darcs-users] Re: argh. please change the name "unpull"
droundy at abridgegame.org
Sat Mar 19 13:53:44 UTC 2005
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:15:44PM +1300, Quag wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:48:52 +0100, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Friday 18 March 2005 23:07, Quag wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:55:46 +0100, Ivan Stankovic
> > >
> > > <pokemon at fly.srk.fer.hr> wrote:
> > > > Yes, "drop" seems nice, especially if you consider how often it is used
> > > > in expressions like "dropping a patch". If the name has to be changed
> > > > (though I don't have anything against unpull), I'd go for "drop".
> > >
> > > Yup, "drop" is good. Any objections?
> > David wrote this some time ago  > Since unpull is perfectly safe
> > when used on pulled patches, I'd rather > give it a nice unscary name
> > that reflects that, rather than a scary name. > In my experience it's
> > very rare that I unpull a patch that wasn't gotten > either by a pull
> > or an apply (and usually it's a pull).
> > The objection I have against 'drop' is that unpull shows a workflow and
> > drop shows the function. Darcs works because its workflow optimized,
> > tla does not work because its just a bunch of functions the user has to
> > find out how to best put in a workflow. (which is the unix way)
> I agree with a workflow approach, and for this reason drop is not a great
> name, but it still isn't an argument to keep unpull as the name. Unpull
> currently describes a number of workflow tasks: 1) unpull, 2) unapply, 3)
> discard-a-record, 4) get-rid-of-a-patch-someone-pushed, and so on. We
> could create aliases so that there was a proper workflow based name for
> them, but then we're back to the aliasing problem.
Indeed drop is a better name than any other I've heard. The problem with
names like forget, remove, annihilate or delete is that they never tell you
precisely what the command does. They could apply almost equally well to
unrecord or unpull, or even to rollback.
With the right amount of though, you can figure out what unpull does by
thinking of it as the opposite of pull (except for the conflict-marking
issues, which are a problem). Similarly for unrecord.
I don't think there is sufficient reason to rename the unpull command, but
if we did rename it, I think drop is the best suggestion so far. The only
ambiguity I can see for drop would be if people thought it did what
rollback does. Since losing history is something other revision control
systems don't allow you to do, this is a real concern, that users might
feel like as long as they're making changes via darcs they can't lose their
precious data, and I'd hate to have people inadvertently "dropping" patches
that they didn't really want to permanently delete.
More information about the darcs-users