Code review comment for lp:~mbp/bzr/initialize

> I like the idea, but I don't really see that we have to not use things
> the way they are documented. In my test scripts, I certainly do:
>
>  bzrlib.initialize().__enter__()
>
> So this does make things easier there.
>
> I'm not sure that it is perverse to ask people to use the api the way it
> was designed. I suppose it is called 'initialize()' and not
> 'get_initializer_context()'.

It's really just the name I think doesn't go with the semantics. As
you say if the name implied that it didn't actually do the
initialization that would be ok.

I wrote this out of annoyance at wondering why it wasn't initializing.
 (I did realize we had the state concept but I thought initialize
automatically entered it.)

Third opinion welcome...