Ashley Moran <[email protected]> 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 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). Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
