Re: [PYRITE] Status update and call for information.

From: Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com>
Date: May 24, 2008, 19:59 UTC
Message-ID: <20080524195957.GC3745@dpotapov.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <5d46db230805232216p7936e5dex3aa3ff0e1e0dce06@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:16:17AM -0500, Govind Salinas wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Govind Salinas" <blix@sophiasuchtig.com> writes:
> >
> >> 1) Reduce the number of commands.
> >>
> >> I am currently at 30 total commands, and while I have some more to go, I
> >> think there are some ways that I can get rid of some of them by
> >> combining them.  Do we really need a clone, branch and checkout?  Don't
> >> these all mean the same thing in the end?  They mean get me a working
> >> directory of the repository starting at X.  For clone, you start
> >> with 'master'. For checkout, you tell it what to get you.  Branch
> >> will help you manage things you can locally get.  So perhaps we can
> >> do something like the following...
> >
> > Note that you sometimes want to make a branch without checking it out.
> > Also note that git-branch is overloaded to get a list of branches
> > available.
> >
> 
> Sure, removing commands is not about removing features, its about
> reducing the learning curve and reducing confusion.

I don't see how hiding creating branch functionality behind some other command will help with learning curve or reduce confusion. If I started to use any new SCM and had to create a new branch, I would look for the "branch" command. If there is something wrong with the git-branch then it is that this command does not checkout the newly created branch by default. So, I usually create branches using git-checkout, which is counterintuitive.

I don't think any commonly used SCM unites 'clone', 'branch', and 'checkout' functionality under the same name. This approach seems to be more confusing than helpful.

Dmitry