From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:32:44 -0800 Message-ID: <7vzmasld43.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <87k61yt1x2.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <200611151858.51833.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: <200611151858.51833.andyparkins@gmail.com> (Andy Parkins's message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:58:50 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkQVP-00043Q-Vh for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:33:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030937AbWKOTdD (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:33:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030938AbWKOTdB (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:33:01 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:31899 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030937AbWKOTdA (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:33:00 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061115193259.TJOH97.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:32:59 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id n7Z51V00g1kojtg0000000; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:33:06 -0500 To: Andy Parkins Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Andy Parkins writes: >> But trying to rename "pull" (or the "git" name itself) is just going to >> cause more confusion than you fix. > > I don't think so. Mainly because the proposed new git pull would be a subset > of the existing git pull. It's not changing function, it's just reducing in > function. We usually use the word "regression" to refer to that kind of change. I think it makes a lot of sense having command x that does essentially the same thing as the current fetch but with more usability enhancements and more convention as built-in defaults, and another command y that does what the current 'pull .' does but with more usability enhancements and more convention as built-in defaults. I agree that kind of UI improvements would make it easier to explain to new people. Calling x "pull", however, breaks the existing users and documents, and causes confusion. I really do not think you can argue with that. That's why we are talking about using an uncontaminated word "get". I think it is a good effort. >> aren't that complicated. There's no reason to rename them. We do have >> other problems: > > That there are other problems doesn't negate these problems. And I think Linus is right in pointing out that there are other problems that are equally or even more pressing than _renaming_ to break things for existing users. I personally do not think the current fetch/pull confusing, and I do see real downside in _renaming_ them, but I am open to the current get/put discussion because I think the new commands' semantics may be designed to match newcomers' expectation better (it's to match tools to newcomers instead of teaching them the new language of the land) and I do not think that approach would break existing users and documents. For some things "matching tools to newcomers" would not really work, though. For example, I do not think you can get away with hiding index forever if you want your users to do real work in a workflow that involves merging and cherry picking.