So how about renaming the command line options as follows (alternatives in order of decreasing preference)
rename to be
forrest site => forrest mksite forrest static forrest makestatic
-1 on mksite (I don't like accronyms in commands)
+0 on static (I'm not +1 since I have no problem with site, but I'll not object if others like this)
-0.5 on makestatic (as above, but I prefer static)
It's worth reminding ourselves of why Ferdinand feels this renaming is important. He points out that some users are using Forrest to generate stuff other than web sites, so "site" can be misleading. This is true for much of my own work where I am building Learning Objects.
forrest run => forrest serve
forrest server
forrest dynamic
-1 on serve (serve is an adjective) -1 on server (too generic) -0.5 on dynamic (it doesn't say what it does)
I am happy with "run", nevertheless, since I am mostly against Ferdinands suggestions I'll make another proposal to see if it suits our needs:
forrest servlet
Renaming the 'build' directory is difficult because of it's mixed use, but I'd still suggest naming it 'output' to avoid confusion with the software build and because this is much easier for non programmers to understand.
Even better would be to split build into the functional units, move its three sub directories up and name them
'tmp' (as before), 'staticsite' (instead of 'site') and 'serverworkspace' (instead of 'webapp').
I'm +1 one on splitting the stuff generated by building the Forrest application and the stuff generated by "forrest site" (or whatever it may become). But I don't see the need to go further and have all these different directories. To me webapp and tmp both belong in build since they are only of interest to forrest itself, not to the end user.
The static contents should go into another directory, as should the war file if generated for remote hosting.
I'm not sure about "output", but I have no better suggestions at present.
Ross
