Better name for dpush wanted

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Nicholas Allen writes:

 > I don't understand the problem with the number of commands. If you
 > reduce them then you add more options to the remaining commands and then
 > they aren't as discoverable.

I don't really think have a half-dozen variations on "ls" all of which
have very different names from each other is a big improvement over
having one "ls" command whose one-liner is

ls   list selected files known to bzr or in the tree

If you want to know if bzr can tell you what files you should have
that you don't after a misadventure with 'rm *', it may not be obvious
that "missing" is the command you want, and with 144 fully packed
lines in the help, I think it's easy enough to miss "missing".  But if
you know that "ls" exists and has options, I don't think it's hard to
look at "bzr help ls" and find "bzr ls --missing".

That's a matter of opinion of course, and I know that some of the
suggestions went too far.

 > I think Bazaar's done a pretty good job of coming up with names for
 > commands that represent common concepts.

Sure.  The problem isn't really that there are too many names, it's
that there are too many core concepts, some of which (like init-repo)
should not need to be exposed to ordinary users.