Better name for dpush wanted

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:
>
>   
>> Even in that case, the push still will have been lossy from the POV of
>> other users of the branch (the additional data is only present
>> locally, and not all users will have that data). So I think "lossy" is
>> an appropriate description for this kind of push.
>>     
>
> It might be an accurate *description*, but that doesn't make it an
> appropriate *name* for the operation. The name should be chosen so that
> a user, with the desired operation in mind, will easily bring to mind
> the correct command.
>   
I think "lossy" is closer to that than "foreign".
> So, I agree with previous suggestions that the name be chosen so that it
> speaks to the *purpose* of the user when invoking it. “I want this push
> to be lossy” isn't something that the user will be thinking; “I want to
> push to a non-Bazaar branch” seems closer to me, hence ‘--foreign’.
>   
If the user wants to just push to a non-Bazaar branch they should *not*
be using this option. They should just be using "bzr push".

"bzr dpush" is only for users who want to push to a foreign vcs but
don't want to leave any references to Bazaar (e.g. bzr-related file or
revision properties in svn); in other words, they only want to push that
data that can be natively represented in the foreign vcs.

Cheers,

Jelmer