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=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: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:20:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <87k61yt1x2.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <455A1137.8030301@shadowen.org> <87hcx1u934.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87bqn9u43s.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vbqn9y6w6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v3b8ltq7r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-reply-to: <7v3b8ltq7r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home 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 1GkCGe-0008So-Ea for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 05:20:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966574AbWKOEUx (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:20:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966576AbWKOEUx (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:20:53 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:20474 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966574AbWKOEUw (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:20:52 -0500 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J8R001TK82RWEF0@VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:20:51 -0500 (EST) To: Junio C Hamano Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > > "You pull the remote changes with 'git-pull upstream,, then you can > > merge them in your current branch with 'git-merge upstream'." > > > > Isn't it much simpler to understand (and to teach) that way? > > If it were "you download the remote changes with 'git download > upstream' and then merge with 'git merge'", then perhaps, but if > you used the word "pull" or "fetch", I do not think so. > > I would be all for changing the semantics of "pull" from one > thing to another, if the new semantics were (1) what everybody > welcomed, (2) what "pull" traditionally meant everywhere else. > In that case, we have been misusing it to be confusing to > outsiders and I agree it makes a lot of sense to remove the > source of confusion. But I do not think CVS nor SVN ever used > the term, and I was told that BK was what introduced the term, > and the word meant something different from what you are > proposing. > > You have to admit both pull and fetch have been contaminated > with loaded meanings from different backgrounds. I was talking > about killing the source of confusion in the longer term by > removing fetch/pull/push, so we are still on the same page. > > That's where my "you download from the upstream and merge" comes > from. But the fact is that HG (which has a growing crowd of happy campers, maybe even larger than the BK crowd now) did work with and got used to a sensible definition of what a "pull" is. This means that their definition is becoming rather more relevant with time than what it used to, and because it is a saner definition than what GIT has for the same word which HG users really have no issue with, I think we really should leverage the "common wisdom" and consider aligning ourselves with them in this case rather than trying to go into a totally different direction. We simply won't gain anything trying to teach people "a pull in HG is a download in GIT". If a pull becomes the same thing for both then it's one less oddball in the GIT interface.