[darcs-users] Announcing darcs 1.0.4rc1

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "David" == David Roundy <droundy at darcs.net> writes:

    David> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:59:48PM +0930, Jonathon Mah wrote:

    > The current usage for this command is:
    > Usage: darcs put [OPTION]... <REPOSITORY>

    > From that it is not clear that <REPOSITORY> is the location of a  
    > _new_ repository. Something like <NEW REPOSITORY> would make it more  
    > evident.

    David> Done.

It would be nice if this were consistent throughout.  In my notes to
myself, as well as in naming arguments in scripts, etc, I consistently
use "repo[sitory]" for an existing repository and "branch" for the new
repository.  When both exist, it's "local" (what I've been hacking on
most recently) and "remote" (archival or mainline).  I tried "source"
and "target" (eg for push and pull), but that didn't work so well for
me.

This works for me, although I hesitate to recommend adoption by the
project because others might put a different spin on words like
"branch" and "local".

If a consensus appears in favor of some terminology, I'll make time to
review the commands and cons up a patch.

I'd also like more consistency in the object-specification options.
--patch works for everything I used, but IIRC the official names are
longer and vary from command to command.  Similarly with --repo vs
--repo-name, etc.  (I realize that last seems to be a distinction of
existing vs. new, but that's too fine for me to remember at use time.)

If something like this would be acceptable in principle, I'll work up
a patch.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.