branch --bind or branch --bound?

[Martin Pool]

2010/1/11 Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at canonical.com>:
> Eli suggested my proposed --bind option for branch be called --bound
> instead. I don't mind either way. What would new users expect the option
> to be called?
>
> Is it:
>
> * --bind (because branch --bind == branch + bind), or
> * --bound (because it creates a bound branch)?
>
> I don't want to bikeshed on this but I'll give it 18-24 hours before
> making a call.

reconfigure has --bind-to=ARG fwiw

either --bind or --bound is ok with me, with perhaps a slight
preference for --bound but another slight preference against
bikeshedding :)

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>