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

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Martin Pool wrote:
> On 7/19/07, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> Ian Clatworthy wrote:
>> > Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Do you see sending being the default in the future?
>>
>> I'm not sure.  We may use "send" for that.
> 
> It's a good question.  It seems to me that producing a bundle is kind of
> an implementation detail - when I do this, it's almost always because I'm
> going to send it, and it's just an implementation limit that we don't
> nicely invoke the mail client yet.

For me, the main issue is configuration policy.
1. how do we set up the interactive client.  what are the alternatives?
2. how do we configure the target address?
3. how many target addresses should we have?  How should we configure
   them?
4. should targets control the contents of the merge directives?  (e.g.
   PQM doesn't need preview patches).

> How about
> 
>  send -o OUTPUTFILE

Given a send command that actually sends mail, this is pretty good.  -o
will be rarely used, for sure.

> I think this is the
> key operation, and these are details:
> 
> - to send mail directly, or produce a file you can send
> 
> - to include all the revision data, just a patch, or just a branch url

Fully agreed.

> In the way I work now, with a branch per feature that are pushed to a web
> server and also sent to the list, I can imagine that when I finish a
> feature I'd want to do
> 
>  bzr push    # to sourcefrog.net/bzr
>  bzr send    # to the list for review
> 
> I do see them as different operations.
> 
> Maybe we should keep bundle as a lower-level or hidden command, but use
> send as the main interface.

Yeah, I think once we've got a real send command, that would make sense.

Aaron

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

iD8DBQFGn6LO0F+nu1YWqI0RAonLAJ0TaPexfPd+bJqXhP+4sIygWfEdWgCeJ+wj
UvNsYlGAA00aIQedwStKwh8=
=4FLW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----