> Garrett Rooney <email@example.com> writes:
>> Really though, I think 'svn resolve' is a perfectly fine name, and
>> we're spending entirely too much time and effort on a problem that
>> will never be completely solved. Users will always type the wrong
>> command from time to time, it just happens.
> I'd like to reiterate disagreement with the above sentiment.
> Sure, users will always make mistakes, but good software won't
> encourage it. You speak as if problems can only be solved completely,
> never partially. If that were true, we wouldn't be in the revision
> control business in the first place :-).
> The "risk" here is the likelihood of making the mistake, multiplied by
> the severity of the consequences.
> 1. The names are similar enough that the chance of mixing them up
> is higher than for two randomly chosen commands (by now there's
> empirical evidence to support this).
> 2. The severity is quite high -- you lose your changes.
> Therefore, we ought to consider this a real problem. At some point,
> when I come back from cvs2svn-land or just need an hour's break, I'll
> change "resolve" to "settle", unless a) people strongly object, or b)
> someone beats me to it :-).
Hello, another user entering the discussion...
I think "revert" and "resolve" both describe the operation of those commands
Every new user of subversion has to learn these commands - having them named
aptly helps this.
Only a small proportion of users will be of the kind who type fast enough,
and sufficiently on auto-pilot to confuse two really-not-that-similar
Therefore, I think it is better to leave them as is.
On a side note, you can do some fairly destructive things with rm, yet
people aren't trying to make it only delete (say) 100 files, unless a
special option is given, or something.
In any case, given the outcome of the last commit-then-discuss event on this
subject, wouldn't it be better to wait for a firm consensus to form first,
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Jun 10 18:46:01 2003