From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>,
Steven Grimm <koreth@midwinter.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Teach 'git pull' about --rebase
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:47:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071128224717.GG7376@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071128223339.GF7376@fieldses.org>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:33:39PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> What they're really complaining about is the size and complexity of the
> interface, and the lack of a clearly identified subset for them to learn
> first.
>
> This has so far mainly manifested itself in complaints about the number
> of commands, because that's currently where a lot of our complexity is.
> But they *will* complain about proliferation of commandline switches and
> config options too. (I've heard complaints about the number of switches
> required on the average cvs commandline, for example.)
>
> We're stuck expanding the interface here, whether we expand it by
> another command or another commandline switch.
>
> So, how do you decide whether to make it a new command or not?
>
> - Look at existing documentation that talks about pull: if that
> documentation will still apply to the new pull, that weighs
> for keeping it the same command. If theat documentation would
> apply only without having a certain config value set, then I
> think it's better as a separate command.
>
> - Will this make it more or less simple to identify the subset
> of the git syntax that a user will have to do a given job? If
> there are jobs for which someone might only ever need the new
> fetch+rebase, or for which they would only ever need the
> traditional pull, then I think it would keep the two separate,
> to make it easier for a learner to skip over information about
> the one they're not using.
>
> I've got no proposal for an alternate name. All that comes to mind is
> the portmanteau "freebase", which is terrible....
Actually, considering the second point: people that are using
fetch+rebase don't necessarily need or (for now) want to understand pull
at all. But they certainly *do* have to understand rebase. Would it be
possible to add this to rebase instead of to pull?
git rebase --url git://x.org/x.git master
where --url means "interpret <upstream> as a branch from the given
remote repository.
That interacts poorly with --onto, though.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-28 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-25 22:54 [PATCH] Teach 'git pull' the '--rebase' option Johannes Schindelin
2007-10-25 23:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-25 23:10 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-10-25 23:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-25 23:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-25 23:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-10-26 9:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-28 0:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-28 13:11 ` [PATCH v2] Teach 'git pull' about --rebase Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-28 13:15 ` Jonathan del Strother
2007-11-28 14:02 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-28 13:19 ` Jakub Narebski
2007-11-28 20:35 ` Steven Grimm
2007-11-28 20:40 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-28 21:10 ` Lars Hjemli
2007-11-28 21:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-28 21:58 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-28 22:06 ` Steven Grimm
2007-11-28 22:33 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-11-28 22:47 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2007-11-28 23:12 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-28 23:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-28 23:56 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-11-29 0:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-29 8:36 ` Andreas Ericsson
2007-11-29 3:23 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-11-28 21:59 ` Jon Loeliger
2007-11-28 22:02 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-12-01 20:37 ` Björn Steinbrink
2007-12-03 13:10 ` Karl Hasselström
2007-10-26 11:43 ` [PATCH] Teach 'git pull' the '--rebase' option Jeff King
2007-10-26 11:45 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071128224717.GG7376@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=hjemli@gmail.com \
--cc=koreth@midwinter.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.