From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wesley J. Landaker" Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull: refuse complete src:dst fetchspec arguments Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:29:15 -0600 Organization: icecavern.net Message-ID: <200910201329.16359.wjl@icecavern.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 20 21:29:32 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1N0KOh-00082P-96 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:29:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752819AbZJTT3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:29:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752451AbZJTT3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:29:19 -0400 Received: from rinoa.icecavern.net ([92.243.7.152]:57205 "EHLO icecavern.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbZJTT3S (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:29:18 -0400 Received: from tonberry.icecavern.net (c-76-113-110-228.hsd1.nm.comcast.net [76.113.110.228]) by icecavern.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95FE63686F; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:29:20 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.29-2-amd64; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-Face: #;qMWg=Msk*d]z]X1P2-t9]~6+RoGF$nJo89f%|Y`^whfl3Wj$X2Q_1u)ZAW@Hx|g)J]!) =?utf-8?q?=0A=09Br0=3FK3Imj?=)np=]r*QN,Q8].V99^Og'xl-d9FM~$yaSGB"mfXb>x[QNi[() =?utf-8?q?oob=60/4M42=26We=0A=09cC1jq=3DQ=5CS?=@ck\>H@ =?utf-8?q?t=26Y7Y=3Apub=3DHOWqY=7D-d=5CwrCxvsTo7k1Ek=7DqQO=5D5=7EngK=5E=25?= =?utf-8?q?cT5IzmmG=5BQ=0A=09Nha=7D=5DAmI=60R-6m84VcWT4=236c?=)1`>t{$~l6:gZMtv18ge'!d[Yk-/?T3>C5O-|6On4( =?utf-8?q?N=7BAV=23=0A=094Eyw52=5B=3A=25Z?=>#"c Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tuesday 20 October 2009 12:23:06 Thomas Rast wrote: > git-pull has historically accepted full fetchspecs, meaning that you > could do > > git pull $repo A:B > > which would simultaneously fetch the remote branch A into the local > branch B and merge B into HEAD. This got especially confusing if B > was checked out. New users variously mistook pull for fetch or read > that command as "merge the remote A into my B", neither of which is > correct. One thought here is that if the change you suggested (and I personally like) in your "[RFC] pull/fetch rename" thread was made, then I would expect to be able to run this exact command to have git fetch the remote branch A into the local branch B (with no merging taking place, because I didn't say -- merge). So basically, it would be like "git fetch $repo A:B" is now. I readily agree that the *current* behavior of that command would have probably caught me off-guard, since I probably only would have typed that on accident (e.g. using "pull" when I meant "fetch").