08:16 < abentley> Better phrasing: 'what circumstances should cause us to produce a working tree in a repository branch'?

[Matthew Hannigan]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:53:58AM +0100, Denys Duchier wrote:
> Matthew Hannigan <mlh at zip.com.au> writes:
> 
> > How about just
> >
> > 	bzr repository <repo>
> 
> unlike "branch" and "checkout", "repository" is not a verb.

Yeah I know, I was going to address that but I thought I'd keep
the message short and sweet.

I think "bzr repo" has an fairly obvious interpretation.
I mean, what else are you going to with a noun by default?

> On the other hand, there are a bunch of commands which are not verbs.
> 
> So, I guess, I don't understand what the deciding logic is supposed to be.

Hey, we're dealing with people here, there is no logic :-)

I once had the idea of having a complete noun+verb interface for baz/tla.
so all the following would work. (apologies if you're not familiar with baz)

	baz archive new
	baz tree new
	baz new tree
	baz mirror archive
	baz archive mirror
	baz branch get
	baz get branch
	baz tree update
	etc... 

This would satisfy those who are object-oriented or process-oriented.

The default 'verb' if none supplied being 'new' aka create.
And if only a verb is supplied, the noun would depend on the
context.  But about the only context you have is the cwd.

The main problem is that it's too wordy for the common case,
and also there's the problem of correctly determining whether
an arg is a command or a parameter, or not allowing trees/branches
etc to be called 'new'.

Matt