Better name for dpush wanted

[Ian Clatworthy]

Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> Ian Clatworthy wrote:

> No, there was some discussion about it but we didn't come up with
> anything final. I think the main thing to keep in mind is that the name
> should express that the command destroys history in the source branch.
> The best name I've heard so far was "push-lossy".

My main concern with that is that it emphasizes the quality of the
push over the objective of the command (which IMO is updating a
foreign master & then resynching the local branch). Isn't it
conceivable that the "lost" metadata be shuffled off to the side
(therefore not populating svn revision properties say) in the future?
If so, then the "lossy" vs "non-lossy" bit could be an option to
push-xxx.

>> FWIW, the best suggestion I'd seen/heard so far is
>> calling it "push-out".
>>   
> What does the -out mean in this case exactly?

It means "out to a foreign system and then re-synchronise this branch".
The fact the it's updating the target branch *and* the local branch
made me originally think a name like "sync" would be good. But
"push-xxx" will be more discoverable I suspect.

Ian C.