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

[Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>]

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

> 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)

--