On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 12:50 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 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).

Ok, so 'pull' do the bk thing, and 'update' do the cvs thing.  I think
however you should do either do one or the other.  Maybe drop the
'update', and rather add 'checkout' (or 'co' for short) which will
update the tree (or merge with local changes if needed).  Then you have
two distinct separate things (ok, so pretty much how bk do things).

This will also enable you to make 'fork', 'export', etc just do the
right thing with the database, but leave 'checkout' up to the user if he
wants to do so.

Martin Schlemmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to