[darcs-users] darcs transplant

[Trent W. Buck]

Rob <rob.rgm at gmail.com> writes:

> 2009/5/15 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>:
>> Simon Michael writes:
>>
>>  > Nit pick: shouldn't this just be called darcs rebase ?
>>
>> No.  If you want, you could call Darcs itself "rebase", because
>> commuting patches is fundamentally what rebase is about.  David would
>> probably have to sue you for defamation, though. :-)
>>
>> Transplant is IMHO a bad name, partly because Darcs fundamentally
>> doesn't think in terms of a history DAG, so "moving (some part of) a
>> branch" doesn't really make sense.[1]  There's also the problem that
>> Mercurial's use of the term does conflate rebase and cherrypicking.
>>
>> I think "cherry-pick" is really closest to the flavor of what's
>> proposed here.  The main problem I can see is that in other VCSes, a
>> cherry-pick nearly completely destroys the ability to detect that a
>> patch has been previously applied.  That connotation would not be true
>> in Darcs.
>>
>> Footnotes:
>> [1]  It's a *set* of related patches, not a *sequence* of commits as
>> understood in other VCSes.
>
> What about calling it "borrow"? I think a name like this conveys that
> it will take the content of the patch(es) but not the entire (branched)
> context leading up to the patch(es).

Can someone write the code first, and decide what to call it later?