[darcs-users] darcs patch: Hide the inefficient "darcs put" command.

[Thomas Hartman]

I'm leaning towards the removal camp.

I think where darcs wins over git is in the simplicity of the
interface, so that strength should be emphasized wherever possible.
The fewer the commands the better.

However, I also agree with the symmetry argument. So I think it's
reasonable to leave put as a command and have darcs put --help say
something like

"Was: the opposite of get. A good way to copy a local repository to a
remote location. However, as implemented this was inefficient and
slow, so removed, perhaps to be reinstated at a future time. Instead
of put, use darcs init in the remote location and then darcs push."

If put gets fixed so fast smart and efficient it could be put back in."

I'd also like to say that my experience that the help message (and not
only for put) is easy to miss, being at the bottom of a slew of flags.
Maybe it would be easier if the command summary were displayed at the
top.

thomas.

2008/12/5 Josef Svenningsson <josef.svenningsson at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:32:03PM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 00:10:42 -0800, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>>> >> I propose that the "darcs put" command be hidden until it becomes as
>>> >> efficient as "darcs get".  That means it is not listed in "darcs help"
>>> >> or in the user manual.
>>> >
>>> > I have no objections.  Anybody else?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I object.
>>>
>>> I was the one implementing the infamous put command and the reason
>>> that I did it is that it provides for a use case which isn't
>>> possible with the other darcs commands afaik (or at least very
>>> cumbersome). It goes like this. I have the following setup: a laptop
>>> which I use quite a lot for hacking and a server which provides
>>> reliable storage and possibility to publish repositories on the
>>> web. Now, it's very common that I create a repository on my laptop
>>> when I start hacking on a project. After the initial bit of hacking
>>> I want to put this repository on the server. Doing this with the get
>>> command from the server is highly inconvenient for two
>>> reasons. First of all my laptop doesn't have a fixed ip address so I
>>> would have to look it up.  Secondly I would have to be able to log
>>> in on my laptop via ssh or have a small webserver installed to be
>>> able to publish the patches to the server. On linux this is fine
>>> since sshd is fairly standard. On Windows otoh this is very
>>> inconvenient. So I see the put command as filling a very important
>>> niche. Note also that this use case doesn't require put to be that
>>> efficient. It's only a very small initial repo that is transfered
>>> with put and so its inefficiencies are bearable, at least that's my
>>> experience.
>>
>> I considered that use case, and in my initial post I mentioned that
>>
>>    darcs put x:y
>>
>> amounts to
>>
>>    ssh x darcs init --repodir y
>>    darcs push -a x:y
>>
>
> Right.
>
>> IMO this use case is not common enough to warrant a whole new command
>> just to save one line, particularly since it doesn't NEED to be
>> implemented within darcs -- it can be implemented as a shell function.
>>
> Here's where our opinions differ. I don't want to have to script my
> way around this. For me, this *is* a common enough use case.
>
>> I'd like to minimize the number of visible commands, because new users
>> don't know which commands are "important" and which are for "edge
>> cases".  If "edge case" commands aren't listed, the user can focus
>> more easily on the "important" commands.
>>
> I'm sympathetic towards the argument that we want to minimize the
> number of visible commands. In this particular case though the
> symmetry with get is so clear that users actually might start to
> wonder if put wasn't there in the first place. That was the case for
> me anyway when I started using darcs.
>
>>> Despite its warts I think put should stay and remain documented. It
>>> fills a small but important niche.
>>
>> I suggested hiding it as a compromise.
>> Note that "darcs put --help" will still work.
>>
> Hiding information is a very poor (but sadly rather common) way to try
> to improve user interfaces. If we decide that put is not sufficiently
> important (despite my screaming and kicking) I think it should be
> removed altogether. Having a class of secret, half-hidden commands is
> only going to confuse users in the end.
>
> Josef
> _______________________________________________
> darcs-users mailing list
> darcs-users at darcs.net
> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
>