Better name for dpush wanted

[John Szakmeister]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:14 AM, Russel Winder
<russel.winder at concertant.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think this discussion (aka argument) is going to become a bit
> interminable unless there is a move to create some form of agreement.
> For good or ill the current name is "dpush" as a separate command name.
> Given the (weak) analogy of "git commit" and "git svn dcommit" to "bzr
> push" and "bzr dpush", the status quo actually works fine for me.

To be honest, I don't know if the analogy is all that weak.  I saw the
command, and immediately suspected that it was similar to git's
dcommit.  I personally don't mind the command name the way it is.

> So Issue 1 is
>
>        Separate command or option?
>
> I argue that because "dpush" changes the source branch from which the
> pushing occurs  a separate command is essential.  "push" never changes
> the source branch, it always only changes the push branch.  This seems
> like a nice safe haven for users, they can guarantee that no matter what
> disaster happens during the push, the source branch is safe.  If "dpush"
> becomes an option to "push" then this invariant is not available.

The more I think about it, the more I agree.  I'm definitely in favor
of a separate command versus an option.

[snip]

-John