Better name for dpush wanted

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Brian de Alwis writes:

 > I completely agree with Nick.  People latch onto the number of  
 > commands as it's something easy to quantify, but I fear they're  
 > missing the forest for the trees.

You needn't fear for me.  Number is a symptom, not a problem.

 > Simply counting the number of commands doesn't capture anything
 > about the meaningfulness or distinctness of the commands.

But I have also described why I think certain commands are redundant.
That kind of thing is always YMMV, so your cheap shots about "people
who like git" are counterproductive.  Instead you should try to
address the stronger criticisms, like "who needs init-repo, which is
really easy to forget vs init --shared-repo" (which option will be
necessary if we get a repo feature that doesn't force you to use a
certain project layout, so it's not necessarily a trade of a command
for an option).  Or about the various specialized ls commands.

Or how about the egregious case of gtk?

 > What really matters to novices is being able to create and evolve a
 > meaningful mental model of how bzr's commands fit together.

The ten commands that you actually use fit together the same way that
git's or Mercurial's do.  See PEP 374.  How the other 152 commands fit
in is another question, and while it's a minor hindrance, I think
command proliferation in bzr *is* a hindrance to understanding bzr
just as it is for git.

Nor do I think that Bazaar has particularly well-named commands.  I
think Mercurial's "incoming" and "outgoing" are much more intuitive
than "missing", the relations among "pull", "push", "merge",
"checkout", "revert", and "update" are quite complex, and pull's
behavior at least is quite unintuitive.