Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> It is mighty hard to come up with a good label
True, but that has nothing to do with being able to recognize one that
isn't so good.
It's easy to diss someone else's work. I offer the best thing I could
come up with and I stand ready to change when something better comes along.
Can you help me think of a better term? We do want a term. Something
short that people can say "darcs has X" or "what makes darcs special is
that it has X" where "X" is something that sounds positive and is not
intimidating, and is based on the reality that what makes darcs special
is the theory of patches.
What do you think of "patch commutation"?
- "Darcs is special because it has patch commutation"
- "Thanks to patch commutation, darcs can resolve conflicts more
predictably and reliably than any other VCS".
The front page could read:
Darcs is a free, open source, source code management system with many
fabulous features:
* Distributed - ...
* Smart - Thanks to its Patch Commutation feature, darcs lets you
cherrypick, merge, apply patches in different orders, ...
* Reliable - Patch Commutation is more reliable than the traditional
3-way merge because it is built on a sound foundation of mathematical
theory. But you don't need to know the theory to use Darcs.
* Easy - ...
How does that sound? Even if you don't like it either, would you call it
a step forward or a step back?
> When a word ends in "s" (Jesus, Darcs) the possessive is formed by
> appending an apostrophe only and keeping the pronunciation
> intact. I didn't invent this rule. I just followed it.
Indeed, you did invent that rule, because it's wrong.
I did not invent the rule and it is not fair that you say that I did. My
English teacher might have been wrong (this is something I need to
check) but if he was, that is not the same thing as me fabricating rules
out of thin air.
> Could you suggest an example of (b)? I'm sure it would be useful in the
> documentation.
See my other post.
What other post?
> I already lost confidence. How do I know if my project fits your
> definition of sane?
You're playing word games, because you have no text in front of you.
Of course, I wouldn't use a word like "sane" at all, that's way worse
than "smart" as you correctly, if inappropriately, point out.
Yes I did, I had your email. You used the word 'sane'. Btw, I was not
trying to compare 'sane' with 'smart'. That never crossed my mind.
As usual for me, I think it's too verbose and a bit stiff. But maybe
you can do something with it.
Sure. I've bookmarked this email and I might borrow some of your work.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
