On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 02:59:36PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I find the proposed ordering rather artificial. Also, he left out a > bunch of commands. I think that there should be a standard way to > express what is affected and what permissions are needed, as proposed > by Nimrod Abing, but I find the following grouping more natural (and > it's not so different from yours). > > Keeping up with a remote project: > > get > pull > > Adding to a local project: > > init > record > ...
There's something about the way the overview was done before (and with my suggested reordering) that this seems to miss. I've been using darcs for some time, mostly for collaboration with just myself. For some reason, I hadn't found this light use to be acclimating me to darcs. So I decided to go back and read the manual a second time. Even with light use, I had used many of the patterns you list above. But it was the command summary in the manual with its focus on what gets changed that caused a real "lightbulb" moment for me. I feel much more comfortable with darcs now, because I can remember precisely what is being changed by each of the commands I use. I simply proposed the regrouping because I think it might have helped me sooner. I like what you propose above, but I think those groupings work better in the form of short "case studies" of typical uses of darcs (Chapter 5 "Best practices"). Perhaps that chapter could use a summary section. Don -- Don Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
