From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:47:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20091021074759.GB13531@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <200910201947.50423.trast@student.ethz.ch> <20091021063008.GA3349@glandium.org> <7v3a5db6ij.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v63a99pok.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091021074522.GA13531@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Mike Hommey , Daniel Barkalow , Thomas Rast , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= Steinbrink To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 21 09:48:10 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 1N0VvW-0005r6-6x for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:48:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753158AbZJUHr7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:47:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753047AbZJUHr7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:47:59 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:59763 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752730AbZJUHr7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:47:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 31808 invoked by uid 107); 21 Oct 2009 07:51:38 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:51:38 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:47:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091021074522.GA13531@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 03:45:22AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Declaring it a failure depends on what you consider the goal of "git > remote update" to be. I find it very useful as a shorthand for "fetch > from _all_ remotes"[1]. Which does save typing over > > [...] > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:22:35AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> *1* The only thing "git remote update" does that "git fetch" does not >> is that it can serve as "fetch from everywhere" shorthand. But that >> is something we could have added to "git fetch". So in that sense, I >> think it may make even more sense to deprecate "remote update" and >> teach "fetch" how to do that. ...and it would probably help if I had read your footnotes before responding. -Peff