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

Trent W. Buck twb at cybersource.com.au
Fri Jul 17 00:13:22 UTC 2009

Max Battcher <me at worldmaker.net> writes:

> Trent W. Buck wrote:
>> 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
>>> 	• rename changes to log
>>> 	• rename record to commit (DVCS are popular enough now)
>>> 	• rename rollback to new "repeal"
>> I'll add one:
>>     darcs status --hidden alias for--> darcs whatsnew
> +1 for a ``darcs status`` hidden alias. That seems reasonable and I
> know it has tripped up people from other SCSes. I'm mostly opposed to
> renaming ``darcs get`` and ``darcs changes``, but clone and log
> (respectively) are fine for hidden aliases.

On reflection, I think "darcs status" would be better as an alias for
"whatsnew -s" rather than exactly "whatsnew".

> The most useful other alias I can think of would be ``darcs info`` as
> a hidden alias for ``darcs show repo``. (Similar to ``svn info``,
> which apparently is a relatively common svn command for me. I've never
> mistakenly tried ``darcs info``, myself, but I have learned that
> neither hg nor git provide an info command either.)

I don't think we should add aliases that only one VCS uses.  I think we
SHOULD add aliases if many/most other VCSs have a de facto consensus on
how that command should behave -- and "clone", "commit" and "status"
seem to fall into that category.

More information about the darcs-users mailing list