From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Bader Subject: Re: Git terminology: remote, add, track, stage, etc. Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:06 +0900 Message-ID: References: <8835ADF9-45E5-4A26-9F7F-A72ECC065BB2@gmail.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Thore Husfeldt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 19 06:49:47 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P848x-00026k-7m for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:49:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932982Ab0JSEtW (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:49:22 -0400 Received: from TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.206]:39013 "EHLO tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932464Ab0JSEtU (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:49:20 -0400 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.160]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o9J4n8V5010157; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:08 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id o9J4n8L04819; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from relay21.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.50]) by vgate02.nec.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9J4ZIXD000842; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from relay41.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.20] [10.29.19.20]) by relay21.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:07 +0900 Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.97.89] [10.114.97.89]) by relay41.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:07 +0900 Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 39D6352E1B8; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:07 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: (Matthieu Moy's message of "Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:41:21 +0200") Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Matthieu Moy writes: > We already came up with a better wording, namely "upstream", and used > in in "git push --set-upstream". Probably a next step would be to > deprecate any other occurence of --track meaning the same thing That doesn't make much sense to me; "upstream" and "track" are not alternatives; rather, they're complementary: "upstream" is a _thing_, and "track" is an _action_ -- one _tracks_ _upstream_. "--track", then, merely implies "upstream", which seems fine to me, as I'm not sure there's anything else it could refer to. I think the original post, while well-meaning is a bit overwrought, and reflects the difficulty in learning any new system as much as it does any inconsistency in git's terminology[*] -- Git's huge sin, after all (judging from most complaints I see about it), is that It Doesn't Use Exactly The Same Model (and thus Terminology) That CVS Did... [SVN's great sin, of course, is that It Does (interpret "CVS" liberally here).] [*] Git is certainly guilty of using inconsistent terminology -- cached/staged/index/yada is my personal complaint -- but I don't think to anywhere near the degree implied by that post. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.