[darcs-users] should 'changes' be renamed 'log'? (was: Re:SchwernLikesDarcs SchwernHatesDarcs)
conradme at email.uc.edu
Sun Mar 20 19:46:34 UTC 2005
On Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:41 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2005 10:45, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > 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.
> The overview of commands needs some love, thats true; also every new tool
> takes some time to learn. Fooling our users into believing its a drop in
> replacement for cvs/svn is certainly going against everything a usability
> person should be aware about.. Imagine: "The commands are the same, but
> it does different things!"
I would point out that when using a new tool, it is reasonable to read the
manual first so long as the manual is very very short, especially when the
tool is going to do something that you rely heavily on (like archiving your
data). Especially if the tool operates differently than any others.
In other words, I think that the darcs usage screen that shows after typing
"darcs" should be read fully before creating the first repo. It takes all
of 5 minutes.
Having said that, I do agree that people might not immediately associate
"list of changes between revisions" with "changelog". I wouldn't object to
renaming 'changes' to 'changelog', or maybe just changing the brief
description to "Gives a changelog for the repo in a human-readable format".
More information about the darcs-users