Reinier Lamers <[email protected]> added the comment: Hi all,
Op zondag 02 mei 2010 14:29 schreef Eric Kow: > Eric Kow <[email protected]> added the comment: > On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:04:42 +0000, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > > 4. Look into the matcher name. Log seems fine, but just in case > > > it may be useful to have another thought about it. Trent suggested > > > 'description' in his issue1769. > > Argh, I just thought of something! > > The problem with 'description' is that darcs send uses 'description' > to refer to the patch bundle description; whereas what we're looking > for is what record calls the 'long comment' Or the 'log'. Or the 'description' The code that deals with this, i.e. Darcs.Patch.Info, only speaks of 'name' and 'log'. The words 'description' and 'comment' are not used there. The patch name is not part of the log. In the online help of darcs record, 'comment' (in the option names), 'log' (in the --logfile option) and 'description' (in most of the running text) are used to denote what the Darcs.Patch.Info code calls the log. > What do you think we should do? Call the matcher comment? If we'd want to settle on a single term, I vote for "comment". "description" can then be used for patch bundle descriptions, and "log" makes me, as a programmer, think of the log files where administrators can see what a program is doing. Reinier ---------- nosy: +tux_rocker __________________________________ Darcs bug tracker <[email protected]> <http://bugs.darcs.net/patch222> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
