martinvonz added a comment.
In D8029#119813 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8029#119813>, @marmoute wrote: > I am still not convinced by the command name. > > In D8029#118464 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8029#118464>, @martinvonz wrote: > >> In D8029#118463 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8029#118463>, @marmoute wrote: >> >>> Coudl we use a flag for to `hg copy` for that ? something like `hg copy --forget` >> >> Why would you prefer that? Discoverability? > > Discoverability, avoiding command creep, interface clarify, avoiding interface of similar command drifting appart from each other. The two command really deal with the same data in the same way. Having them one would > >> An argument against it is that the commands take different flags and arguments (for example, `hg uncopy` takes only the destination, no source). > > I don't think it is a big deal `hg copy source dest`, `hg copy --forget dest` seems clear enough to me. > One of the thing that bother me is that `hg uncopy` is not reverse of `hg copy`, it is the reverse `hg copy --after` I expect it can be a source of confusion. using `--after` better map the behavior of the function, that is closer to `hg forget` as you point out in your changeset description. You're saying you want the user to say `hg copy --forget --after dest` to unmark it as copied? REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8029/new/ REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8029 To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers, durin42, marmoute Cc: pulkit, durin42, marmoute, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
