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 Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ 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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html