[darcs-users] Re: .darcs is portable

zooko zooko at yumyum.zooko.com
Thu Mar 31 01:14:45 UTC 2005


> I know that Schwern and maybe some others would prefer .darcs... I just
> can't get why.

1.  "grep something */*" excludes .darcs but includes _darcs, since bash 
ignores dotfiles in such cases.

2.  When I introduce people to darcs, they sometimes ask me what the _darcs 
dir is for.  If it were named ".darcs", like the equivalent directory in 
subversion is named, then they wouldn't get distracted by it, since humans 
ignore dotfiles in such cases.

3.  It's like what subversion does.  Really, I think the onus should be on the 
other side of the issue: why should the directory be named "_darcs" instad of 
".darcs"?  I know of some answers, but none of them are very compelling 
answers.

darcs should do things like Subversion does them, unless there is a compelling 
reason to do it differently.  Obviously, a lot of what darcs does differently 
than subversion is compellingly better, but naming the meta dir with '_' 
instead of '.' and having "changes" instead of "log" and "whatsnew" instead of 
"diff" are not compellingly better, so they should be made the same as 
subversion in order to maximize adoption of darcs.

Regards,

Zooko





More information about the darcs-users mailing list