clobber or overwrite or ???

[Steve Borho]

On Saturday 22 October 2005 07:17 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
> Both push and pull have the concept of being able to be told: "Really do
> your thing." when the revision-history of the modified branch is not a
> prefix of the source branch.
>
> Aaron used --overwrite, I used --clobber. After a quick discussion on
> #bzr, everyone seemed to think clobber was local to their region :).
>
> What does the list think? clobber is more fun, and I *think* everyone
> will know what it means, particularly with a help message.

'noclobber' is a common shell option (bourne, csh, zsh, etc) which prevents 
existing files from being overwritten by a shell pipe.

So I think using 'clobber' as an argument would be perfectly acceptable.

--
Steve