(controversial) Renaming 'bzr' => 'bz'

[Wichmann, Mats D]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 21:16 -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> 
>> There are plenty of other usability issues which could get
>> some attention instead.  One example for me:
>> 
>> bzr status
>> 
>> has several different sections, which can include at least
>> removed, added, modified, unknown.  Each one of these should
>> have a matching bzr command which has output usable by other
>> commands. "bzr unknowns" works, although to match should be
>> named "unknown" (or status output changed to "unknowns").
>> "bzr removed" doesn't work, we need to say "bzr deleted".
>> Why are these different? "bzr ignored", not represented by a
>> "status" section, does not have usable output (I can't do
>> "rm `bzr ignored`" because it has the rule along with the
>> filename; that's okay but should be an option, not the default).
> 
> What do you think of having bzr ls be the preferred way to query
> these individual things? e.g. 
> 
> bzr ls --ignored
> bzr ls --removed

I could get used to that - doesn't seem a bad approch.