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

Ashley Moran ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk
Wed Jul 15 18:24:04 UTC 2009

On 15 Jul 2009, at 11:58, Dan Pascu wrote:
> 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.

Actually I've always found `darcs changes` confusing.  I'd expect it  
to do what is actually handled by `darcs whatsnew`.  I've always felt  
`darcs changes` should be something more like `darcs show patches` or  
some such.  Never put a lot of thought into it, it's just my head  
doesn't accept these terms easily.

`darcs record`, however, I've always preferred to "commit".

And I like `darcs get` because its opposite is also its antonym -  
`darcs get`.  Because of the reversible nature of most darcs commands,  
I like the ones that form pairs to be named in a way that implies  
their relationship.



More information about the darcs-users mailing list