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=AWL,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: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:10:16 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3b8ltq7r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:48:09 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) 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 1GkAEJ-0001wD-GA for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:10:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966462AbWKOCKT (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:10:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966464AbWKOCKT (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:10:19 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31]:54421 "EHLO fed1rmmtao08.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966462AbWKOCKR (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:10:17 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061115021017.IOEJ18207.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:10:17 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id mqAP1V00C1kojtg0000000; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:10:23 -0500 To: Nicolas Pitre Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org 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.