[darcs-users] Re: argh. please change the name "unpull"

[Nimrod A. Abing]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Mark Stosberg
<mark at summersault.com> wrote:
> On 2005-03-18, Nimrod A. Abing <nimrod.abing at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How about just creating an alias for the "unpull" operation instead of
> > completely renaming it? Or rename "unpull" but leave it as an alias
> > for the new name.
> 
> Having two names continues the confusion by having two names when you
> just need one.  This is one of the interface weaknesses of tla-- having
> many aliases that do the same thing.
> 
> I would consider having a hidden alias if there was a sense that a lot
> of scripts were depending on 'unpull'. I don't have that sense.

I should have rephrased that suggestion. Keep "unpull", but don't put
it anywhere where a new user would find a reference to it (e.g.
document it as one of the "rarely needed and obscure commands" or
remove it from documentation.), and leave it as an alias for whatever
new name gets decided for "unpull". Having it as a hidden alias would
minimize breakage for scripts and tools that depend on this name being
recognized as a valid command name.

This would apply not just for "unpull" but for any command that would
be renamed in the future. And from the looks of things it would seem
that "unrecord" is another candidate for renaming.

And BTW. "drop" is a better name for "unpull" :)

Cheers!
-- 
_nimrod_a_abing_

v1sw5CPJYUhw5ln3pr8OUSck6ma8u7LBw3DWNTm5g/l7DaIs7Rr4e6t5Xb4Op1en3g5RZAHC