Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] git-svn: rename 'commit' command to 'set-tree'

From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Date: Dec 16, 2006, 21:44 UTC
Message-ID: <20061216214455.GC26800@hand.yhbt.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vbqm4ezv8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> writes:
> 
> > 'set-tree' probably accurately describes what the command
> > formerly known as 'commit' does.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure that 'dcommit' should be renamed to 'commit'
> > just yet...  Perhaps 'push' or 'push-changes'?
> 
> I think Pasky did such a three-way rename to avoid breaking
> people's fingers.  I thought it was a reasonable transition
> strategy, but some people might say its only effect was to break
> people's fingers not just once but twice, so Pasky himself
> and/or Cogito users may have some input on this.

Good point about breaking fingers twice. I don't think 'commit' accurately describes any current operation that git-svn does; so the command can probably go away safely. I'm guessing that something along the lines of 'push' is probably a better way to describe 'dcommit'.

Show 5 quoted lines

> We are talking about major UI change between 1.4 series and
> v1.5.0 on the core Porcelain-ish side, so if you feel confident
> that things would settle down in a month or so in the git-svn
> front, it may be a good idea to roll sweeping changes into the
> same timeframe.

I plan on supporting remotes in the config file; and adding support for svn in git-fetch (wrapping git-svn multi-fetch, which should get faster by then)