[MERGE] dpush / foreign vcs testing

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Brian de Alwis wrote:
> On 3-Apr-2009, at 8:34 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> I don't get a vote, but the name is meaningless to me. Before
>>> someone decides to approve it, can it be improved with a name that
>>> actually helps understand what the command does?
>> Can you suggest a better name? I agree the current name is not very
>> clear, but I can't think of anything that covers what it does better.
>
>
> A few suggestions: "divorced", "disassociated", "disjoint",
> "dismembered".
>
> And it seems that this style of push could be generally useful for
> DVCS.  At least it would seem to match the semantics of Ian's
> cherrypicking BBC changes to avoid a merge carrying across now-useless
> exploratory code.

    There's nothing disjoint about this command though; afterward this
    command the source branch and the target branch will have the same
    contents, but those contents will be (slightly) different from what
    was originally in the source branch.


Cheers,

Jelmer