"submit" command naming - just "bundle" preferred?

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
> I've been a little uneasy about introducing 'submit' as a new command
> name for a few weeks now. I haven't spoken up because I didn't have a
> better alternative, I hoped someone else would, and I had other things I
> needed to get done first. My concern boils down to this: we aren't
> actually submitting anything - we're just preparing something to submit.

In this version, yes.  I expect that it will be able to send email in
the future.

> I've been scanning the user doc of other DVCS tools

> Of those, I like "bundle" the most. Force of habit perhaps but "bundle"
> works well for Mercurial where it's treated as both a verb and a noun.
> Just like "patch".

I don't think it's an appropriate name, because it doesn't always
include a bundle.  The problem is that you're looking for an analogous
command, but other systems have no analogue to merge directives.

> If we're introducing "submit" and making "bundle" an alias of it, the
> partial argument about not changing bundle's UI disappears doesn't it?

Not really, no.  In certain common uses, "submit" behaves the same as
"bundle".  The similarity is close enough that I think it's helpful as
an alias.

But "submit -r -3..-2" does not behave the same as "bundle -3..-2", and
"submit --no-bundle" has no analogue in the bundle command.  I think
that "bzr bundle --no-bundle" is ludicrous, but the option name is
accurate-- it's the command name that's wrong.

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

iD8DBQFGngtd0F+nu1YWqI0RAjXiAJ9oLbsSfAH81zYbtis4/ir6qzLP0QCfTXuc
HaKf4I4NIecyKhv1KtFMPBA=
=dioW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----