RFC: naming of the 'record' command in the loom plugin

[James Westby]

Hi all,

I reported a bug on the loom plugin stating

  The name 'record' for a command is quite generic. Also it
  is the darcs term for 'commit'.

  I also think there is an existing plugin for bzr to add darcs
  style (per hunk) commit, which uses the 'record' name.

  Attached is a patch to change the command name to
  'record-loom'. I didn't add any deprecation in, as with the
  plugin only a few days in the wild I doubt anyone is too
  used to it yet.

and Robert replied

  We don't generally qualify our other command names (we don't have
  push-branch, or commit-tree); I'd rather we brainstorm (e.g. on the
  bazaar list) about names than do this hacky-and-ugly name.

so I am bringing the discussion here.

My arguments for the name would be

  1. It is clear that it is to do with looms for someone just seeing
     the command name.
  2. It doesn't use the term from another VCS to mean something quite
     different.
  3. The TODO of looms makes it sound like 'record' is a lower level
     command that will one day be superseded by a 'commit-loom' command
     or similar. (I may have got the wrong end of the stick here).
  4. It doesn't overlap with an existing command provided by another
     plugin.
  5. There are already 'revert-loom' and 'show-loom' commands, so this
     fits in well in my opinion.

Anyone else have any opinions? Robert, do you have another suggestion
for how we should handle this?

Thanks,

James