[Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch status update

[Miles Bader]

Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> writes:
> It is possible that "move" should be re-aliased from "move-id" to "mv",

Yes

> however I think it is good to have this complete list of 5 commands:
>
>   add     (alias: add-id)
>   delete  (alias: delete-id)
>   rm      (alias: remove)
>   mv      (alias: move?, rename)
>   move-id (alias: move?)
>
> I am not sure why people think aliases are bad. cvs and svn have a lot of
> them and feel no concern for this.

Aliases are not what's bad; what's bad is misleading and confusing names
for things.  Like the current definitions of "move" and "delete" in tla.

A less confusing set of commmands would be:

   rm        (alias: remove?)
   mv        (alias: move, rename)
   add-id    (alias: add)
   delete-id
   move-id

As a matter of presentation, one can advertise "add" and "add-id" as
separate commands, even though they really do the same thing -- one
being for users, the other for scripts or something.  Then:

   add
   rm        (alias: remove?)
   mv        (alias: move, rename)

   add-id
   delete-id
   move-id

For more consistency, it might be better to use "remove-id" instead of
"delete-id"; remove-id also seems slightly more accurate, in that
"remove-id" seems to emphasize the fact that you're removing the id from
_something_ (a file), whereas "delete-id" sounds like it's just removing
a particular id from the global pool of ids; one might expect a
"remove-id" command to take an id as an argument instead of a filename.

So:

   add
   rm        (alias: remove?)
   mv        (alias: move, rename)

   add-id
   remove-id
   move-id

-Miles
-- 
97% of everything is grunge