This changes "working directory" to "working tree" even where the
meaning is "current working directory" i.e. wrt file system semantics.
This is not at all the same as what we call the "working tree".
I am all for consistent naming but in this case all the places must be
reviewed manually to change only those where the meaning is actually
"working tree" in the sense of "the directories and files that the user
edits" as opposed to e.g. the "pristine tree" which is the recorded
state of the repo.
Okay, I will take a closer look at this. I should probably rename most
occurrences of "working direction" to "working tree" in the user facing
code though, maybe I went a bit over board with renaming everything. Do
you have a specific example where my patch breaks semantics? Any thoughts?
There remain issues with the patch.
In D.R.Job the meaning is 'working directory' as stated, not 'working
tree'. Also in D.UI.Completion and D.Util.Tree.Monad and D.Util.Path and
in tests/mv.sh. In D.Util.Index only the first change in the module
header comment is correct, for the other two the meaning is 'directory',
In D.R.State, one of the changed comments no longer makes sense:
'Obtains a Tree corresponding to the complete working tree...'; this
should be shortened to 'Obtains the complete working tree...'. Also on
line 313 'working dir' should also be replaced with 'working tree'.
In D.R.Merge the debug message is not very helpful and should be
re-written to better conform to what is happening; but we can do that in
a separate patch.
Thanks, much better. Only two small nitpicks remain:
In Darcs.UI.Completetion you went a bit too far with re-replacing: There
was a 'working tree' in a comment that you, I think accidentally,
changed to 'working directory'.
In Darcs.Repository.Hashed the change on line 444 is wrong; look at the
original sentence: "Read a 'PatchSet' from the repository (assumed to be
located at the current working directory)"; replacing directory with
tree here sounds weird and is semantically wrong.
BTW, the easiest way to fix the patch is to amend --unrecord the two
changes, then revert them, then re-send.
If you fix these, your patch is ready for screened. Thanks again for the
contribution and looking forward to more of the same or similar. I am
constantly trying to move the code base toward more consistency and
every contribution toward that goal is worth the effort.
I may choose to rebase your patch on top of my latest refactorings at
https://hub.darcs.net/bf/darcs-bf-latest as there are conflicts which
are easier to resolve this way than by rebasing all my 60 or so patches.
This is /not/ the usual procedure and I am myself to blame for the
situation because I did not manage to properly send patch bundles and
screen them yet. I hope this won't bother you. (I will take care to not
change any of the meta-data of your patch.)
I rather have someone familiar with the code nitpicking my patches than
contributing something that doesn't improve darcs so your feedback is
highly appreciated :). Let's see if this is better. Thanks again, for
taking the time to review this.