From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:30:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20091021063008.GA3349@glandium.org> References: <200910201947.50423.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Rast , git@vger.kernel.org, =?iso-8859-15?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 21 08:29:31 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 1N0UhO-0000Ua-2T for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:29:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752545AbZJUG3U (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:29:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752552AbZJUG3U (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:29:20 -0400 Received: from vuizook.err.no ([85.19.221.46]:55342 "EHLO vuizook.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752545AbZJUG3U (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:29:20 -0400 Received: from cha92-13-88-165-248-19.fbx.proxad.net ([88.165.248.19] helo=jigen) by vuizook.err.no with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N0UhB-00078o-T4; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:29:20 +0200 Received: from mh by jigen with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N0Ui0-0000v6-T4; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:30:08 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: A479 A824 265C B2A5 FC54 8D1E DE4B DA2C 54FD 2A58 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Status: (score 0.1): No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=disabled version=3.2.4 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 07:56:01PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > While everyone is busy in two other UI threads, I figured I might as > > well toss up another (probably) controversial topic. > > > > Especially on IRC, we see many people who are some combination of > > misunderstanding, misusing or overusing git-pull. I figure this is > > the result of several factors, notably > > > > a) pull/push are not symmetric, > > In a certain sense they are; they both update the branches local to one > repository with the data from the other repository. In this sense, fetch > is the oddity in that it doesn't update any repository's own branches, but > just the local information about other repositories' branches. BTW, shouldn't fetch be deprecated in favour of git remote update ? (this may require adding some features to git remote update, but you get the idea) Mike