[darcs-users] should 'changes' be renamed 'log'? (was: Re: SchwernLikesDarcs SchwernHatesDarcs)
Michael G Schwern
schwern at pobox.com
Sun Mar 20 21:29:39 UTC 2005
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:51:52PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > You already have a large population of people who are comfortable with
> > certain terminology (CVS/SVN users). Leverage that. This makes things
> > easier.
> IMHO this is not the best way for darcs and its users. The biggest problem
> is that users of central repository based SCMs are 1) quite confused by
> new functionality and terminology of advanced distributed SCMs and 2) more
> generally, people migrating from one system to another often complain
> about a need for learning something new.
This would be a problem IF I was talking about emulating the full CVS
command set. I'm just talking about the change log command. Moderation.
Find the points where darcs workflow is the same as other VC's workflow and
make those parts look similar (add, diff, mv, remove, annotate). Diverge
their form where the workflows diverge (record, send, pull). You can use
the command set difference to your advantage. Similar command, similar
workflow. Different command, different workflow. Its nice, subconsious
cue for the user.
Nobody seems to have a problem with "darcs add" even though there's a
"cvs add". Why? They do basically the same thing.
> But take it from the other side: you are now considering darcs. Why? It
> seems your current systems do not satisfy your needs as you would like,
> rigth? If so, then please take a breath and try to learn basics of darcs
> while not comparing it to anything else -- except BitKeeper(TM) which
> provides nearly similar working style.
I'm not *really* comparing darcs to CVS, I'm just thinking that way as an
exercise to hopefully help smooth the way for CVS users following on.
I have worked with distributed version control systems before, SVK is my
current choice, but darcs seems much smoother in certain ways so far.
> FYI: I've migratted from CVS to Arch few years ago and it was really steep
> learning curve, where Arch didn't help me a lot and in fact added quite a
> lot of not so usefull complexity. Generally Arch is quite complex. IMHO
> darcs's model is more simpler and in fact try to be the simplest for
> distributed SCM.
Arch seems a bit of a straw man around here.
More information about the darcs-users