From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Andy Parkins Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:58:50 +0000 Message-ID: <200611151858.51833.andyparkins@gmail.com> References: <87k61yt1x2.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=qZd2ps7GQi7L9pg1munFHL/AJjGfMc4XTn3iCqmvi8jjxDjLkOCVNGoLrUNpCTqafeSKd61knSrC9s0nz9/hOAkrKELCz6kIlc333ziwy6LDbe4nDeGrxt6i7UMBfTYBSjW8neKzxPkDe1CPNQj3EHi4EHN9Q0DzyrzYjN6Dajk= User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkQ1A-0004aL-JG for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:01:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030879AbWKOTBb (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:01:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030882AbWKOTBb (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:01:31 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:10770 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030879AbWKOTBa (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:01:30 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so228167ugc for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.216.6 with SMTP id o6mr3465246ugg.1163617288316; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from grissom.internal.parkins.org.uk ( [84.201.153.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u6sm1307914uge.2006.11.15.11.01.27; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:01:27 -0800 (PST) To: git@vger.kernel.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 2006, November 15 18:03, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Guys, before you start thinking this way, the fact is, there's a lot of > happy git users. I'm a happy user, doesn't mean I wouldn't like changes. In fact, by that argument, that there are happy users means that there is no need to ever make changes. > - git itself has now done it that way for the last 18 months, and the > fact is, the people _complaining_ are a small subset of the people who > actually use git on a daily basis and don't complain. That's awfully like the argument I hear off my bank whenever I complain to them too - "well lots of other people don't complain so we must be right". The people who complain are a subset of the people who have complaints. I don't think never changing is a good argument - leaving aside the actual changes under discussion - in another 18 months lets say there are double the number of git users, and 18 months after that double again - in that case the potential new users needs outweigh the current users needs. > If you think "pull" is confusing, I can guarantee you that _changing_ the > name is a hell of a lot more confusing. In fact, I think a lot of the > But the fact is, git isn't really that hard to work out, and the commands On the one hand you're arguing that git syntax is easy to learn, and on the other that no one will be able to learn a new syntax just as easily. > aren't that complicated. There's no reason to rename them. We do have > other problems: That there are other problems doesn't negate these problems. > But trying to rename "pull" (or the "git" name itself) is just going to > cause more confusion than you fix. I don't think so. Mainly because the proposed new git pull would be a subset of the existing git pull. It's not changing function, it's just reducing in function. Andy -- Dr Andrew Parkins, M Eng (Hons), AMIEE