Re: Change "pull" to _only_ download, and "git update"=pull+merge?

> Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:05:10PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Martin Schlemmer <azarah@nosferatu.za.org> 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 <david@dgreaves.com> 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).
>