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=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: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: 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> <7v3b8ltq7r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061115201227.GM7201@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-reply-to: <20061115201227.GM7201@pasky.or.cz> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home 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 1GkRLO-0007nH-NT for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:26:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030974AbWKOU0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:26:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030952AbWKOU0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:26:46 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:20267 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030973AbWKOU0p (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:26:45 -0500 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J8S00K43GSKGFE0@VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) To: Petr Baudis Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Petr Baudis wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:10:16AM CET, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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. > > How was/is fetch contaminated? I think "fetch" is sane. Its only problem is a missing symetrical counterpart verb, like "get" and "put".