Better name for dpush wanted

[Ben Finney]

Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at vernstok.nl> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > 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.

I still don't understand why it would be necessary for this operation
to alter the source branch, and am disturbed by the assertion that it
does. It certainly doesn't give me confidence that I'd ever want to use
this operation, which in turn makes it difficult for me to think of an
appropriate name for it.

-- 
 \      “The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days |
  `\                        later you're hungry again.” —George Miller |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney