Better name for dpush wanted

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at internode.on.net> writes:
>
>   
>> FWIW, the best suggestion I'd seen/heard so far is
>> calling it "push-out".
>>     
>
> I'm against adding another command; conceptually, it's the same
> operation as ‘push’ with a different option.
>   
It's conceptually different from push: it does not copy revisions from
the source branch to the remote branch, it creates derived versions of
the source branches' revisions in the target branch. It also changes the
source branch, something which push should never ever do imo.
> My favourite is ‘push --foreign’.
>   
Apart from the fact that these are two commands that do related but
different things (see above), I think that "foreign" is a bad name here,
as it implies that option is necessary to push to foreign branches and
that's not true; it's not even the recommended way to push to foreign
branches.

Merging dpush into regular push would also imply adding options to push
that are only useful when specifying --dpush/--foreign. Right now there
is just --no-rebase, but it's not unliky there will be more options in
the future, e.g. for storing the map with old and new revision ids.

Cheers,

Jelmer