dpush

[Ian Clatworthy]

Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 15:33 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 02:24:19PM +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> Some time back there was a big debate about dpush.  Was there ever a
>>> resolution?  "bzr help dpush" still works.
>> Can you be a more specific? What was the debate about?
> 
> Getting rid of the dpush command for uploading to Subversion and Git
> repositories with rebasing in favour of an option to the push command.
> Personally I had no problem with having dpush for this as it is a
> special case of Bazaar behaviour, but many people wanted to expunge the
> extra command in favour of using options on the one true push
> command :-)
> 

Right. We had a *long* debate about the dpush name and agreed something
more meaningful would be great. We just never got final agreement on
what. See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2009q2/057141.html.
Russel's summary of where the debate was a good one:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2009q2/057246.html.

In a nutshell, I wanted a more meaningful name before "dpush" gained too
much inertia. It's a bit late, I suspect. It might still make sense to
have a better name and make dpush an alias though.

Alternatively, poolie wanted dpush to become "push --xxx" (where xxx was
rebase or foreign or ...) and for users to be able to configure the
behaviour to be implicit for target URLs. I can't recall if Jelmer was
against that for semantic reasons, technical reasons or both.

Before we dig up the command-line UI debate again, can I ask how Bazaar
Explorer and QBzr users would expect to "dpush"? I suspect a checkbox on
the qpush dialog would be best, right? If so, what would the text say?

Ian C.