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

[Trent W. Buck]

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

Patches welcome!

>> 	• rename rollback to new "repeal"
> repeal sounds ... odd, at least

I agree.

>> 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).

+1.

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
worked.