On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 02:26:53AM +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 03:07:06PM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote: > > In this particular case though the symmetry with get is so clear > > As I stated originally, the current implementation is *not* clearly > symmetrical to get (to me). > > > that users actually might start to wonder if put wasn't there in the > > first place. That was the case for me anyway when I started using > > darcs. > > Is this a widespread wonder? I don't think I ever wondered about an > "opposite" of get -- it would be like having a opposite of cp. IIRC > put actually confused me, because get already operated in both > "directions" (except for remote repos, of course). I assumed that it > had to do something DIFFICULT, because if it just did what it appeared > to do (i.e. the two-liner above), it wouldn't warrant a separate > command.
Last time this topic was discussed I proposed to join Get and Put into a single command named Clone, because I thought Get was a confusing name for putting a copy of a repo on a remote computer, and also thought a single command would be easier than two different commands. But most people preferred Get and Put, and someone (I don't remember who) working with UI design explained that that was more workflow-oriented, which is considered easier to learn. It seems most people still prefer to have both Get and Put. To use ssh + init + push instead of Put is unfortunately not even on the same level of "easy". But we should acknowledge the problem that Put confuses users when it seems to hang. A warning or suggestion for power-users from Put could go a long way. -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
