Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > It seems to share the sort of conceptual integrity that (IMHO) makes > Darcs so nice to use. It does add a bit more symmetry too > > get / put > pull / push > fetch / send
I thought apply was the "complement" of send. > Ganesh pointed out is that we can then explain pull as being fetch + > apply hg and git have this distinction, and I really hate it. It means that there are, in effect, two kinds of pull operation, and when the combined fetch-and-apply operation fails, I don't know if I'm supposed to use the fetch operation and then somehow manually resolve the problem (conflict?), or if there's something actually wrong with the network. I routinely throw away my hg repos and re-record the changes against a fresh clone, because it's too hard to work out what I'm supposed to do next in order to stop the fetch-and-apply operation bitching at me. Maybe Darcs can do better, but I'd like to see the use case for fetch. Hm, I don't suppose you could simply express it as pull --dont-apply or --no-working-tree, similar to push --no-working-tree (for pushing to a "dumb" remote host which lacks Darcs)? > Finally: another option to consider would be to implement darcs plugins: > http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1504 So then Darcs ends up like firefox, where you can't get anything done until you install half a dozen of your favourite plugins? :-) _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
