[darcs-users] should 'changes' be renamed 'log'? (was: Re: SchwernLikesDarcs SchwernHatesDarcs)

Mark Stosberg mark at summersault.com
Sun Mar 20 04:12:54 UTC 2005

On 2005-03-20, Michael G Schwern <schwern at pobox.com> wrote:
>  No "darcs log" its "darcs changes". Seems unnecessarily different from
>  CVS/SVN. Ditto "record" vs "commit"

I find 'changes' more descriptive. Consider that both commands
approximate a 'changelog', I think with a quick trip to 'darcs -h', 
someone looking for 'log' could find what they need. 

Personally, I never used 'cvs log' very much, because it gave
information that was per-file instead of per-tree, and in a suboptimal
format. Half the time I guessed I should be using 'cvs history' instead.  :)

I think having 'record' instead of 'commit' is important, because they
aren't the same thing. A 'commit' moves your change to a central place
where others can grab it. Record doesn't do that. 

cvs commit == darcs record && darcs push

I think any decentralized SCM should make this distinction. 

Once I got in the swing of recording a few times before pushing, it
changed my workflow in a useful way.

Having 'record' called 'commit' would further confuse things. 

I like the current darcs solution for CVS users which is having a table
in the manual which suggests which darcs commands you might want
compared to CVS commands you might currently use:


I think of darcs as the Macintosh of SCMs-- elegant, powerful and easy
to use. Just because its market share is a minority doesn't mean it
should emulate the more popular alternatives.



More information about the darcs-users mailing list