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

Dan Pascu dan at ag-projects.com
Wed Jul 15 10:58:04 UTC 2009

On 15 Jul 2009, at 10:34, Ashley Moran wrote:

> 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
> 	• rename changes to log
> 	• rename record to commit (DVCS are popular enough now)
> 	• rename rollback to new "repeal"
> 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.

I find commit and log worse names than record and changes. I also  
consider them to be remnants of the old ages. Everybody copied them  
over from CVS, so they become widespread, however that doesn't make  
them necessarily better.

Repeal not only sounds odd, but I find it much less suggestive than  

Also an important point to consider is that is't much worse to  
alienate the whole darcs user base, just to make some potential  
newcomers (or people using other version control systems) more  


More information about the darcs-users mailing list