Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:05:10PM CEST, I got a letter
where Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 11:28 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:18:55AM CEST, I got a letter
> > where David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> >
> > Dunno. I do it personally all the time, with git at least.
> > 
> > What do others think? :-)
> > 
> I think pull is pull.  If you are doing lots of local stuff and do not
> want it overwritten, it should have been in a forked branch.

I disagree. This already forces you to have two branches (one to pull
from to get the data, mirroring the remote branch, one for your real
work) uselessly and needlessly.

I think there is just no good name for what pull is doing now, and
update seems like a great name for what pull-and-merge really is. Pull
really is pull - it _pulls_ the data, while update also updates the
given tree. No surprises.

(We should obviously have also update-without-pull but that is probably
not going to be so common so a parameter for update (like -n) should be
fine for that.)

These naming issues may appear silly but I think they matter big time
for usability, intuitiveness, and learning curve (I don't want git-pasky
become another GNU arch).

Kind regards,

                                Petr "Pasky" Baudis
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to