Rob <[email protected]> writes: > 2009/5/15 Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]>: >> Simon Michael writes: >> >> > Nit pick: shouldn't this just be called darcs rebase ? >> >> No. If you want, you could call Darcs itself "rebase", because >> commuting patches is fundamentally what rebase is about. David would >> probably have to sue you for defamation, though. :-) >> >> Transplant is IMHO a bad name, partly because Darcs fundamentally >> doesn't think in terms of a history DAG, so "moving (some part of) a >> branch" doesn't really make sense.[1] There's also the problem that >> Mercurial's use of the term does conflate rebase and cherrypicking. >> >> I think "cherry-pick" is really closest to the flavor of what's >> proposed here. The main problem I can see is that in other VCSes, a >> cherry-pick nearly completely destroys the ability to detect that a >> patch has been previously applied. That connotation would not be true >> in Darcs. >> >> Footnotes: >> [1] It's a *set* of related patches, not a *sequence* of commits as >> understood in other VCSes. > > What about calling it "borrow"? I think a name like this conveys that > it will take the content of the patch(es) but not the entire (branched) > context leading up to the patch(es).
Can someone write the code first, and decide what to call it later? _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
