On Friday 05 December 2008, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > Excerpts from Eric Kow's message of Fri Dec 05 09:26:09 +0100 2008: > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 00:10:42 -0800, Trent W. Buck wrote: > > > I propose that the "darcs put" command be hidden until it becomes > > > as efficient as "darcs get". That means it is not listed in "darcs > > > help" or in the user manual. > > > > I have no objections. Anybody else? > > I consider it not that slow, and like the symmetry. I think that the > help message is clear enough to explain what direction prefer when you > have the choice.
I agree. The command can be very useful to simplify things and to date I haven't noticed it being that slow to bother me. Consider the case where a project starts on a private computer until it gets to a certain stage. Then it is put in a central repository so others can synchronize their work through it. Get is unusable in this case as the system with the central repository doesn't have access to the private computer. So I can either use put, copy it over, or do some contorted gimmicks using init & push, which would require me to run multiple commands on 2 computers. IMO, hiding the command will not motivate anyone to fix it sooner, on the contrary it will most likely make people ignore it to the point when someone will say "Why do we keep this hidden command anyway?" If anyone is seriously considering fixing it at some point, keeping it around as a constant reminder will at some point bother someone enough to fix it. -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
