Better name for dpush wanted

[Jelmer Vernooij]

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
>
> 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".
>
> That's a matter of opinion of course, and I know that some of the
> suggestions went too far.
>   
Reading this, it seems your main objection to this many commands is
particularly with "bzr help commands" not being usable.

What about listing the commands in "bzr help commands" by category?
There could be a category for listing the files in the working tree,
which could include removed, modified, ls, unknown, ignored, etc.

Cheers,

Jelmer