Re: [Monotone-devel] Command design and naming?

[Ulf Ochsenfahrt]

Making monotone easier to use for the centralized use-case is a great
idea, and from my understanding, I don't think anyone one this list will
 oppose this. What Richard (and me) have been opposing is changing the
default commands which are very well designed and orthogonal.
Unfortunately they can lead to excessive typing for some common use cases.

William Uther wrote:
>   Add a new clone command.

Good idea.

>   Add two switches to both pull and sync, --update and --merge.

I'd like you to consider pulling just the exact branch in which working
dir you are at this very moment. I've had a friend pull two distinct and
unrelated branches from a common db and he cursed mtn several times
because it would always pull the wrong branch. (He also cursed it
because it doesn't work like git ;)

>   Add two switches to update, --pull and --merge.

pull and update is like update and pull?
With regard to the merge flag, maybe it would be more sensible to make a
better merge ui first? The current one is really broken.

pull, merge, update = refresh?
commit, sync = record?

Alternatively, I like the idea (that was discussed elsewhere in this
thread) to provide a kind of compatibility mode, where mtn works like
git (monogit) or where mtn works like cvs (monocvs).

>   Add a remote-commit script in contrib: checkin && pull; if there are
> multiple heads then merge, update and warn the user (but do not push). 
> If there is only a single head then push.

Cheers,

-- Ulf

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature