marrying bundle and directive? (Re: [MERGE] Merge directive format 2, Bundle format 4)

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Pool wrote:

> I think, ideally, we only need one command to do this, with options
> controlling just what is sent.  Do we agree that there should be only
> one command?

I think it makes sense to have a single command for the baseline
functionality.  We may also want additional commands that make specific
usages easier.  As an example supplemental command, "bzr send" might
create a merge directive, then create a new message in my mail client,
with the directive as an attachment.

> 'bundle' is shorter than 'merge-directive' but neither name is really
> great because of contradictions like 'bundle --no-bundle'.

Agreed.

> How about a new name like 'emit'?  (Most commands are verbs, it might
> be good if this was.)  That lets us look agresh at what the syntax
> should be.

"Emit" doesn't seem very descriptive to me, but here's what I'd see ideally:

bzr emit [SUBMIT_BRANCH] [PUBLIC_BRANCH]

options:
- -r           specify range of revisions to merge
- -d           source branch location
- -o           filename of output file (otherwise, stdout)
- --no-bundle  Don't include a bundle in the directive
- --no-preview Don't include a patch preview


Some more questionable options:
- --sign    gpg-sign merge directive.  This was intended for PQM use
- --mail-to This was intended to support PQM use of merge directives.  It
          doesn't seem ideal.
- --raw     Emit a raw bundle.  Is this useful?

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGiIkS0F+nu1YWqI0RAko5AJ0VMgaElod6SwrW3U4pgJhV9Fro6QCfbqIX
KuaqZJNOTSfcZeSWro3Fouw=
=ayZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----