description vs. message

[kuchta]

If jj calls commit message description, shoudn't the parameter by named -d instead of -m?

[martinvonz]

See my reasoning in bad23cd. That doesn't mean we can't change it, of course.

[kuchta]

🙂 I absolutely get it. Maybe description isn't the best term. What about -c --comment? It may be even better than description...

[martinvonz]

And rename jj describe to jj comment? Not saying we can't do that either, but I personally prefer jj describe. Let's hear what others think. If few people comment here, I'm going to assume it means they're okay with the status quo even though it's inconsistent.

[joyously]

If jj calls commit message description

Where?
The action is describe and an optional parameter is the message. This makes sense, especially since it's the same as most VCS that came before.
If description is used in help text or docs, maybe that should be changed to message. (It reminds me of using both revision and commit.)

[kuchta]

@joyously If you want to combine different nomenclature from different systems, you inevitably end up with quite inconsistent dictionary like git, which I hope it's damage on sw industry this project tries to fix. It doesn't matter if we are talking about special command that does just that or parameter of another command that does that as a secondary operation of it's primary one....