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

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Well, that was a mistake of mine, proposing --no-bundle,

Actually, I think that was a good option name.

> because I don't
> think the option should be called --no-bundle: the emphasis should IMHO
> be in the fact that the output will carry a public branch URL, not that
> incidentally there won't be a bundle attached.

But in fact, that's not how it works.  The public branch URL is always
included in the merge directive, if available.  If there's no bundle,
then it must be included, and must be up to date.

> So I personally would vote for keeping `bundle` (after all, it's been
> there since 0.8), and change the option name instead, to --public-branch
> or something similar.

I think that if the UI is significantly different, it doesn't make sense
to use the same command name, because it won't behave the way people
expect it to.

I think that the UI should be significantly different, as detailed in my
previous emails:

* -r should have a different meaning
* the second positional argument should be the public branch, not the
  output file
* -o should specify the output file

And so I think it would be confusing to change "bundle" to have this UI.

> If the name is to change... I'll do like everybody else and post a
> suggestion: `bzr pack`.

Does "pack" really mean the right thing, when you're not including a
bundle?  So far, my favourite is "submit".

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

iD8DBQFGiT8/0F+nu1YWqI0RApiOAKCGQEwZrpC/5Qa2FzFLWn5yqFJS2QCfdthz
FOSl+jQRSd6NmYnyMdLQNbU=
=sssD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----