[darcs-users] Naming consistency between darcs and other DVCSs
Trent W. Buck
twb at cybersource.com.au
Thu Jul 16 01:17:20 UTC 2009
Petr Rockai <me at mornfall.net> writes:
>> • 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).
Then, at some point, we can swap around what the hidden alias is, so
that eventually "darcs commit" will be documented and "darcs record"
will be a backwards-compatible alias. Such a change was recently
demonstrated (for darcs move vs. darcs mv, IIRC) and seems to have
More information about the darcs-users