Eric Kow wrote: > How about plugging some of it into the issue tracker? At the moment, > it may be better to use the web the interface http://bugs.darcs.net > (because we're getting this annoying duplicate-bug problem from mail).
David is against 1 so it does not make sense to add it there (it is not such an issue anyway, its only about naming consistency in UI). Point 2 is hopefully being worked on by Ian. And the wiki book may be enough (I did not read it yet). Thanks for the link. The result is this request does not need to be added to issue tracker. Point 3. There is some opposition against part of it. I'll add it by the end of the next weak if there are not any more votes against it. I assume that people not voting against are for. I should read read the wikibook anyway before adding it to issues. I'll add a comment that some want amend-record to be destructive (and that probably means unsafe in cloned repositories). > Note that the choice of 'mv' vs 'remove' was quite deliberate (mv > actually moves things, remove does not). But I think this distinction > is probably lost on most users, and that renaming mv to move (more > precisely, hiding 'mv' and unhiding 'move') should be fine. On the > other hand, renaming remove to rm would be a mistake. Small matters, > but I like polish :-) Not sure what you mean here I was only talking about 'mv' vs 'move'. So it was about mixing abbreviations with full names in UI. But this does not matter now anyway. Peter. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
