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

Michael G Schwern schwern at pobox.com
Sun Mar 20 09:45:33 UTC 2005

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:13:43AM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Stop a moment. ?From the subject you've assumed that its EITHER changes
> > OR log. ?Why not both?
> If you followed this list a bit longer you would have seen me (and others) 
> state that aliases are a big no-no for a workflow (or task) based UI like 
> Darcs uses.
> We want to keep the amount of commands to a minimum to make people 
> comfortable to look through the list and find the command he likes and 
> adding aliases there is thus counter productive.

An alias is not adding a command, its just an additional name for the
same command.  You can omit them from the help lists if you like to avoid 
the extra clutter.  Even if they were only featured in the "converting from
CVS" portion of the documentation it would prevent one from having to go
back to reference the table to figure out what "log" is in darcs (for 

Looking through the list for the command I want, that's only useful if
I'm thinking the same way you are.  As mentioned with "change" vs "log"
I've been trained to look for "log" from CVS/SVN usage thus it took me a
while to notice the "changes" command is what I want.

> This is the short version, naturally;  the long version would add 
> learnability (aka fear of learning) threory and stuff like "KISS" to the 
> conversation.  But those you'll have to look up in the archives :)

You already have a large population of people who are comfortable with
certain terminology (CVS/SVN users).  Leverage that.  This makes things

A command alias is such a simple concept I can't even consider it to be
a violation of KISS.  In fact simplicity, from the user standpoint, would 
state "don't make me learn a whole new command set if I don't have to".

More information about the darcs-users mailing list