threads / discuss / 1817

Should Cogito scripts be renamed?

Subject: Should Cogito scripts be renamed?

## tl;dr

3 messages between Sep 15, 2005 and Sep 16, 2005.

replies: 2people: 3as markdown or json

Petr Baudis· Sep 15, 2005, 23:46 UTC · lore
  Hello,
  I'd like to hear the opinion of Cogito users about renaming the Cogito
commands accordingly to the GIT big renames. This would be:
	cg-pull -> cg-fetch
	cg-update -> cg-pull
  The pros: Terminological consistency with GIT. Some also might perceive
this naming like clearer (I don't, but that's probably the matter of
your environment of origin and opinion).
  The cons: Breaking backwards compatibility and confusing users. The
situation is more vexing since 'cg-pull' would change its meaning from
fetching to fetching+merging. So that alone would require four-phased
renaming (cg-fetch alias, removing cg-pull, wait long time, cg-pull
alias, removing cg-update).
  I'm actually rather opposed to the change. Cogito is getting
established, real-world projects and a lot of people in general already
use it, and this would break the finger habits for all of them, etc.
What do you think?
-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone.  -- Alan Cox
jdl@freescale.com· Sep 16, 2005, 00:07 UTC · re: Petr Baudis · lore

Re: Should Cogito scripts be renamed?

So, like, the other day Petr asked:
Show 5 quoted lines
>  I'd like to hear the opinion of Cogito users about renaming the Cogito
> commands accordingly to the GIT big renames. This would be:
>
>	cg-pull -> cg-fetch
>	cg-update -> cg-pull

It took me a good long while of confusion before I realized that cg and git were inconsistent in their command names and meanings here. It was the source of Head Scratching and Not Understanding.

I am firmly of the opinion that CG should either rename these commands to be more consistent with GIT, or else make up totally new, different names unrelated to git entirely. The reuse of "pull" alone will be, IMO, a constant source of documentation and explanation headaches.

As with git, sooner rather than later, please.
jdl
Josef Weidendorfer· Sep 16, 2005, 15:40 UTC · re: jdl@freescale.com · lore

Re: Should Cogito scripts be renamed?

On Friday 16 September 2005 02:07, jdl@freescale.com wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> So, like, the other day Petr asked:
> >  I'd like to hear the opinion of Cogito users about renaming the Cogito
> > commands accordingly to the GIT big renames. This would be:
> >
> >	cg-pull -> cg-fetch
> >	cg-update -> cg-pull
> ...
> As with git, sooner rather than later, please.

Same option here. The 4-phased renaming could be shortened by letting cg-pull always ask the following if eg. .git/no-cg-pull-warning does not exist:

 Warning: cg-pull includes merging after fetch since cogito 0.15
          Use cg-fetch to do the fetching phase only
 [To get rid of this warning, run 'touch .git/no-cg-pull-warning']
 Do you want to continue (y/n) [n] ?

Getting rid of this annoying question should be easy enough everybody, and via the template-system even for git packers... Even if disabled, I would still do

 Remember: cg-pull includes merging after fetch since cogito 0.15
           Press Ctrl-C in the next 2 seconds to abort.
Josef

← back to recent threads