RFC: naming of the 'record' command in the loom plugin

[Alexander Belchenko]

There is 'record' plugin on Plugins page (which apparently is out of date but still listed there).
This plugin is alos provide record command as in darcs.

James Westby пишет:
> 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      command that will one day be superseded by a 'commit-loom' command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
> 
> 
> 
>