n.b. GHC Users cut because it doesn't know me and I don't have time to introduce myself. :-)
Ganesh Sittampalam writes: > darcs rebase is essentially about giving up on the recombinant patching > because that's not working out for whatever reason. It's primarily > intended as an alternative to manually reapplying patches to new branches OK. I'm still not sure it's a good name. Although git rebase is deprecated for certain use cases by everybody, and considered criminal in any usage by a few, nevertheless it's an operation that many people use very frequently. Such a mode of operation is an alternative to patch queues (quilt, stacked git, Mercurial queues, bzr pipelines). I get the impression that darcs rebase is not intended to be used that way. If so, the command name might want to be different. It's a tough call; if the implementation is basically the same, some people will complain "it works (implementation) just like git rebase, why don't you just call it 'rebase'?" OTOH, if the workflow differs, other people will complain, "it doesn't work (workflow) at all like git rebase; why does darcs suck so much?" We don't need that! Mercurial calls its rebase extension "transplant"; bzr's is "rewrite" (but it provides a command named "rebase", IIRC). Another possibility for the darcs command would be "reorder", I think (what does "base" mean in Darcs, anyway?) Simon M, if you're listening, what do you think? _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
