From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:06:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20091021070622.GA3737@glandium.org> References: <200910201947.50423.trast@student.ethz.ch> <20091021063008.GA3349@glandium.org> <7v3a5db6ij.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Barkalow , Thomas Rast , git@vger.kernel.org, =?iso-8859-15?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 21 09:06:53 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 1N0VHX-0005mX-5o for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:06:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751793AbZJUHFo (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:05:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751508AbZJUHFo (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:05:44 -0400 Received: from vuizook.err.no ([85.19.221.46]:53837 "EHLO vuizook.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750884AbZJUHFo (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:05:44 -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 1N0VGE-0008U9-V5; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:05:33 +0200 Received: from mh by jigen with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N0VH4-0000zK-Mg; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:06:22 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v3a5db6ij.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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 11:33:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > > BTW, shouldn't fetch be deprecated in favour of git remote update ? > > Why? People will then be confused because half of them would expect > "remote update" to somehow affect their working tree, and some others > would expect their working tree reset to one of the branches from the > remote, and it won't solve anything. I must be missing the obvious but which one of fetch and remote update does the above ? I was under the impression that none of them would. > Oh, and it will irritate people who > are used to type "git fetch", too. That's another problem, but my understanding is that git fetch and git remote update are roughly doing the same thing. Having two commands for the same thing is confusing. I kind of like the idea to have one command, remote, to handle, err, remotes. Also note that I said deprecated, not remove ; that could mean keeping fetch, but pushing the use of remote update for new users. Mike