RFC: naming of the 'record' command in the loom plugin
James Westby
jw+debian at jameswestby.net
Mon Feb 25 18:57:33 GMT 2008
Hi all,
I reported a bug on the loom plugin stating
The name 'record' for a command is quite generic. Also it
is the darcs term for 'commit'.
I also think there is an existing plugin for bzr to add darcs
style (per hunk) commit, which uses the 'record' name.
Attached is a patch to change the command name to
'record-loom'. I didn't add any deprecation in, as with the
plugin only a few days in the wild I doubt anyone is too
used to it yet.
and Robert replied
We don't generally qualify our other command names (we don't have
push-branch, or commit-tree); I'd rather we brainstorm (e.g. on the
bazaar list) about names than do this hacky-and-ugly name.
so I am bringing the discussion here.
My arguments for the name would be
1. It is clear that it is to do with looms for someone just seeing
the command name.
2. It doesn't use the term from another VCS to mean something quite
different.
3. The TODO of looms makes it sound like 'record' is a lower level
command that will one day be superseded by a 'commit-loom' command
or similar. (I may have got the wrong end of the stick here).
4. It doesn't overlap with an existing command provided by another
plugin.
5. There are already 'revert-loom' and 'show-loom' commands, so this
fits in well in my opinion.
Anyone else have any opinions? Robert, do you have another suggestion
for how we should handle this?
Thanks,
James
More information about the bazaar
mailing list