> florent> I think darcs pull -O is the bad kind of options, where > florent> adding -O changes the post-condition of pull. > > For what it's worth, I agree with Florent on the principle that > introducing a new command (or flag) is a lesser evil than introducing > subtle complexities. I'd rather the pull command be predictable in the > casual user's mental model than avoid a new command. And while I'm > ping-ponging between the two views, I could be persuaded that pull -o > would introduce a worrying subtlety. > > ian> "pull" and "pull -o" both put some patches into a repository. In the > ian> first case it is a "directory format" repository, and in the second case > ian> a "file format" repository. > > While this may be true, it would require users to do a perspective > shift. I suspect (without actually knowing) that most people just have > a mental model that "pull updates this repo" and "push updates that > repo"; introducing this would be effectively asking them to shift to a > new model. Consider also that pull and push touch the working > directory. > > ian> That's similar reasoning to why I think pull and apply should be merged. > ian> Both are just applying patches from a repository, just stored in > ian> different formats. > > Well I believe that the reasoning on pull/apply being merged > should be separated from the reasoning about pull -o.
So do I (unsurprisingly). I think we should go on with darcs fetch for the time being, since it is the option that gets along best with our "pull is between two repos" story. Then, when we get to merging pull and apply (and add push to bundles?), we will be able to make it clear that there are three repos involved, not just two, and pull -o will make sense. Does that make consensus? Are there arguments against this? quite not insistingly, Florent _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
