From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:41:11 +0200 Message-ID: <200910210041.12738.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <200910201947.50423.trast@student.ethz.ch> <20091021064243.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Bjrn Steinbrink To: Nanako Shiraishi X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 21 00:43:07 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 1N0NOw-00087K-Ln for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:41:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752037AbZJTWlp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:41:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751591AbZJTWlp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:41:45 -0400 Received: from gwse.ethz.ch ([129.132.178.237]:29390 "EHLO gwse.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbZJTWlo (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:41:44 -0400 Received: from CAS01.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.235) by gws00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.237) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:41:48 +0200 Received: from thomas.localnet (84.74.103.245) by mail.ethz.ch (129.132.178.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:41:46 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.27.29-0.1-default; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20091021064243.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nanako Shiraishi wrote: > Quoting Thomas Rast > > 1. git-fetch gets options --merge/-m and --rebase that make it behave > > like (current) git-pull, but requiring explicit arguments. > > git-pull gets a new option --merge (-m) that only enforces presence > > of arguments. > > > > 2. git-pull refuses to do any work unless given either --merge or > > --rebase. Deprecation warnings for this start at the same time as > > (1.). > > > > 3. git-pull becomes a synonym for git-fetch. > > > > 4. git-fetch gives deprecation warnings that point the user to > > git-pull instead. > > Sorry, but I don't understand what's the improvement in the end > result. > > I started reading your problem description and I thought you are > fixing your item 'a) pull/push are not symmetric' by deprecating > pull, to advertize fetch/push. Then asymmetry of push/pull stops > being an issue. > > But it seems that eventually you will keep git-push and git-pull > (because git-fetch gets deprecated); you have push/pull that are > not symmetric. By the time I get to that step, new-pull is current-fetch. So by that time, push/pull *are* supposedly symmetric. (Only deprecating pull never occurred to me, but then I really think the strong association between them makes it worth keeping pull as the opposite of push.) -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch