From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Hudec Subject: Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change? Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:34:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20071126193455.GC25784@efreet.light.src> References: <200711252248.27904.jnareb@gmail.com> <2A34D324-48A4-49EF-9D4E-5B9469A0791D@lrde.epita.fr> <20071126185600.GA25784@efreet.light.src> <85prxw253u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+" Cc: Benoit Sigoure , Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 26 20:36:10 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IwjkK-0005aZ-F0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:35:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753169AbXKZTfE (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:35:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754153AbXKZTfE (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:35:04 -0500 Received: from ns1.bluetone.cz ([212.158.128.13]:45582 "EHLO ns1.bluetone.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754134AbXKZTfB (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:35:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (spamhole.bluetone.cz [192.168.13.2]) by ns1.bluetone.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC5357635; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:34:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from ns1.bluetone.cz ([192.168.13.1]) by localhost (spamhole.bluetone.cz [192.168.13.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id jN0dz+0Dxwtd; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:34:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from efreet.light.src (145-119-207-85.strcechy.adsl-llu.static.bluetone.cz [85.207.119.145]) by ns1.bluetone.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD1E57295; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:34:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from bulb by efreet.light.src with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IwjjL-0006rJ-5Y; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:34:55 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <85prxw253u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 20:12:37 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Jan Hudec writes: >=20 > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 18:10:10 +0100, Benoit Sigoure wrote: > >> On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Andy Parkins wrote: > >> While we're discussing bad names, as someone already pointed out, I ag= ree=20 > >> it's sad that "git push" is almost always understood as being the oppo= site=20 > >> of "git pull". > > > > Well, it is an oposite of pull. Compared to it, it is limited in that i= t will > > not do a merge and on the other hand extended to *also* be an oposite of > > fetch, but still oposite of pull is push. >=20 > With the same reasoning the opposite of a duck is a lobster, since a > lobster has not only fewer wings, but also more legs. No. The basic pull/push actions are: git pull: Bring the remote ref value here. git push: Put the local ref value there. Are those not oposites? Than each command has it's different features on top of this -- pull merges and push can push multiple refs -- but in the basic operation they are oposites. --=20 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec --vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHSx/fRel1vVwhjGURAlroAJ0aG38OHcjepLiuAMHAV/T5u1KW3ACdGdIU 6GrG9yulibgWqvfxNv29QZA= =AV6T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+--