Better name for dpush wanted

[Wouter van Heyst]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 04:38:35PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Nicholas Allen writes:
> 
>  > I don't understand the problem with the number of commands. If you
>  > reduce them then you add more options to the remaining commands and then
>  > they aren't as discoverable.
> 
> I don't really think have a half-dozen variations on "ls" all of which
> have very different names from each other is a big improvement over
> having one "ls" command whose one-liner is
> 
> ls   list selected files known to bzr or in the tree
> 

I would keep conflicts out of that list, but I agree renames, ignored,
unknown etc can all go in favour of ls.  

> If you want to know if bzr can tell you what files you should have
> that you don't after a misadventure with 'rm *', it may not be obvious
> that "missing" is the command you want, and with 144 fully packed
> lines in the help, I think it's easy enough to miss "missing".  But if
> you know that "ls" exists and has options, I don't think it's hard to
> look at "bzr help ls" and find "bzr ls --missing".

`bzr missing` is something entirely else, it tells you the difference in
revisions between two branches. 

I'm thinking it may make sense to fold the missing code into the log
code, but probably still keep it as a seperate alias.

Wouter van Heyst