Better name for dpush wanted

[Neil Martinsen-Burrell]

Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer <at> vernstok.nl> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy <at> internode.on.net> writes:
> >
> >   
> >> FWIW, the best suggestion I'd seen/heard so far is
> >> calling it "push-out".
> >>     
> >
> > I'm against adding another command; conceptually, it's the same
> > operation as ‘push’ with a different option.
> >   
> It's conceptually different from push: it does not copy revisions from
> the source branch to the remote branch, it creates derived versions of
> the source branches' revisions in the target branch. It also changes the
> source branch, something which push should never ever do imo.
> > My favourite is ‘push --foreign’.
> >   
> Apart from the fact that these are two commands that do related but
> different things (see above), I think that "foreign" is a bad name here,
> as it implies that option is necessary to push to foreign branches and
> that's not true; it's not even the recommended way to push to foreign
> branches.
> 
> Merging dpush into regular push would also imply adding options to push
> that are only useful when specifying --dpush/--foreign. Right now there
> is just --no-rebase, but it's not unliky there will be more options in
> the future, e.g. for storing the map with old and new revision ids.

I agree that push should be in the name, but that foreign might give the wrong
impression.  In the spirit of pushing to some other vcs or flavor or language, I
suggest "push-other" which emphasizes the foreign nature more than "push-out". 
Focusing on Jelmer's description of dpush creating new versions of the existing
revisions I also suggest "push-derived" or "derived-push" (which is probaby
where the git UI geniuses got dpush).

-Neil