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

[Ian Clatworthy]

Aaron Bentley wrote:

>> 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?

I don't think 'emit' is quite the right name but I can't offer anything
better yet. Otherwise, I like the core options you've nominated.

My thought on the other options is to only add them if and when the Use
Case for them is clear. Unless --raw is needed on the command line, I'd
leave it out. --sign, --mail-to and --message are options currently for
merge-directive, though I see you've been discouraging their use. In
that case, I'd leave them out for now.

Ian C.