Eric Kow wrote:
So this discussion seems to mix tactics (choice of words) with strategy
(choice of things to say). Aside from the tactical point (not saying
"patch theory"), it sounds like Stephen is making a wider strategic
point that no matter what phrasing we use, we should avoid using the
/idea/ of a patch theory to sell darcs to prospective new users.
Having eagerly partaken of the Kool-Aid, I find this to be a painful
step but one which we will probably be happy to have taken in the long
run. Maybe we really should stop trying to say that darcs is smart and
focus on the fact that it is very easy to use, that it has a unique user
interface that lets pick and choose patches without any fuss (maybe we
can talk more about a notion of selective undo). It's a very delicate
balancing act. But I think once we do figure this out, we'll hit on
that certain cool, low-key professionalism that just *feels* right...
Thanks for the synthesis/clarification. I think that this is a good time
for me to go back and rewrite the docs I have and try to accommodate the
input as best I can. I'll try to implement the strategy as you have
summarized it, and I'll use the term "patch reordering".
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
