[RFC] How to better assist users in resolving conflicts

[Alexander Belchenko]

Martin Pool пишет:
>>> It would be a bit confusing to have 'resolve' and 'resolved' exist as
>>> different commands, so I'd like to see if we can I think, as part of
>>> <https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/506265> we should remove the
>>> 'resolved' alias.
>> I have to say that I'm not read every message on this list and maybe I've
>> missed something but I'm surprised by that bug, especially re `get` alias.
>> I'm using it all the time because it shorter and simpler. So at least I'd
>> like to understand why `get` is bad and will be removed?
> 
> There's nothing particularly wrong with 'get' in particular, and I
> don't have any specific plans to use that name for anything else.
> It's just that in the very early days of Bazaar I scattered synonyms
> onto various commands with the idea that they would later be narrowed
> down onto some more specific set, and I never got around to it until
> now.  Multiple names for builtin commands causes some user cost (eg in
> reading documentation or examples using 'bzr get' and wondering what
> that is) and it restricts the names we can use in future.
> 
> I think keeping the abbreviation type commands like 'bzr st' is a
> different thing and still ok.
> 
> I mentioned this in "countdown to bzr 2.1" a few days ago, but I don't
> blame you for not seeing it, you're very welcome to flag this now.

I've read that message but there you talked about removing 'clone' for 
'branch'. And I remember there was some ideas of reusing clone for 
different operations. I have no objections for this or anything else.

I agree that using aliases like `get` in the docs is BAD practice. When 
I writing articles for bzr-day I'm always trying to use only canonical 
command names as main rule.

Anyway if you don't plan to re-use get today, I will survive with

bzr alias get=branch