duncan.coutts at googlemail.com
Mon May 7 21:17:43 CEST 2012
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 21:50 +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
> Hi guys,
> wrt https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/2 , I didn't comment there
> as there seems to be a consensus on "fork".
> Still, I'd like to question that decision given that "fork" for me
> at least carries too much of a "publish an alternative version
> with changes" meaning.
> Would fetch or checkout or grab or fetch-scm or something
> not be more precise terminology wise?
Andres and I discussed this the other day. I think our consensus was to
use 'get' and to have that also work for tarballs (like the current
We didn't discuss in detail what a 'get' command would look like, e.g.
how to say you want to get the scm version rather than the tarball
More information about the cabal-devel