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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).