James A. Donald wrote: > This is not going to add to user comprehension. Brian's > explanation does add to user comprehension.
I hope someday to explain unix to a small child in this way. But Irby is Zooko's son, and the explanation is his :-). David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > The semantics of 'tahoe rm' can't actually be changed unless we add a > 'destroy' operation. That would require incompatible changes to the > crypto protocol, so it can't be done now. And making rm output a > treatise on link-based filesystem semantics is obviously not > practical. If you have a suggestion for improving the wording while > still keeping it concise and informative, though, that would be > helpful. Hm, perhaps "N files/directories disconnected" ? My argument for continuing to use "delete" to explain what "tahoe rm" does is that, from the point of view of the directory you passed in, those files *are* deleted. If you happen to know of a different path to them, then sure, they're still around in some sense, but a lot of folks will think of those as effectively being separate copies anyways. "foo/bar.txt" was present, then you did "rm foo/bar.txt", and now there's no longer a "foo/bar.txt". Smells like deletion to me :). cheers, -Brian _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
