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 21:09:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20071126200913.GE25784@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> <20071126193455.GC25784@efreet.light.src> <87ve7ozsz8.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu" Cc: David Kastrup , Benoit Sigoure , Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Poole X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 26 21:09:52 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 1IwkH0-0002Wm-9u for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755172AbXKZUJW (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:09:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755163AbXKZUJW (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:09:22 -0500 Received: from ns1.bluetone.cz ([212.158.128.13]:33670 "EHLO ns1.bluetone.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755028AbXKZUJV (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:09:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (spamhole.bluetone.cz [192.168.13.2]) by ns1.bluetone.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD515765A; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:19 +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 7M8+5OoECUm7; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:17 +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 1AC6457635; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from bulb by efreet.light.src with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IwkGX-0006vK-8j; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:13 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ve7ozsz8.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> 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: --PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:50:35 -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Jan Hudec writes: >=20 > > 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 me= rges > > and push can push multiple refs -- but in the basic operation they are > > oposites. >=20 > I think that is in absolute agreement with David: Ducks swim on the > surface of the water and lobsters swim underneath. Why consider the > different features on top of where they swim? >=20 > The thing about git-pull that surprises so many users is the merge. > There's a separate command to do that step, and git-pull had a fairly > good excuse to do the merge before git's 1.5.x remote system was in > place, but now the only really defensible reason for its behavior is > history. When I first looked at hg -- and that was long before I looked at git -- I was surprised that their pull did NOT merge and you had to do a separate step. Partly because doing those two steps is quite common. --=20 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec --PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu 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) iD8DBQFHSyfpRel1vVwhjGURAhYpAKCykfERs45otTeR2wcu5K0OgzR88gCeIKmT aiHPdbxyncQsCXKxLCOqU9s= =iWqr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PHCdUe6m4AxPMzOu--