[darcs-users] Naming consistency between darcs and other DVCSs

Petr Rockai me at mornfall.net
Wed Jul 15 08:00:31 UTC 2009

Ashley Moran <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> writes:

> Hi all
> I just re-stumbled across the darcs Rosetta Stone[1].  What I hadn't noticed
> before was the section "Recommendations for unification":
> 	• rename get to clone
clone is a (hidden) alias for get in 2.3 and onwards
> 	• rename changes to log
> 	• rename record to commit (DVCS are popular enough now)
this could be handled the same way
> 	• rename rollback to new "repeal"
repeal sounds ... odd, at least

> These changes sound sensible to me.  (Plus `darcs uncommit`?)  Is there an
> active effort to make darcs more consistent with other  DVCSes?  Regardless of
> which came first, git terminology is becoming  ubiquitous.  After showing an
> existing git user darcs, and noticing  his surprise at `darcs annotate -p`, I
> think there may be a strong  case for a language reform.
We don't want to alienate existing users either. I'd go the route of adding
hidden git-ish aliases and keep our terminology whenever it makes more sense
(both record and changes are more sensible than commit and log).


More information about the darcs-users mailing list