Re: [Terminology] Push vs. upload?

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Sep 20, 2005, 01:44 UTC
Message-ID: <20050920014448.GA30912@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509191753100.2553@g5.osdl.org>

Dear diary, on Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:55:08AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> told me that...

Show 15 quoted lines

> 
> 
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > 
> >   I've realized today that I "forgot" to rename cg-push to cg-upload, so
> > I impulsively did so right away, but now I'm seeing that the core git
> > still has git-push and no git-upload. This is confusing and appears to
> > be quite inconsistent - push should be the opposite of pull
> 
> No. There is no opposite of pull. You can't update the tree on the other 
> end. It's fundamentally an unsafe operation - the other end is by 
> definition not a private tree.
> 
> (Or, if you want to see it another way: "pull" is "pull"s own opposite:  
> "ssh other-end + git pull from that end" ends up being what you mean.)

Yes, but I'm just arguing about the naming - if you just take the word "pull", "push" is the obvious opposite to that and vice versa, so if we are going to use words "pull" and "push" in the same context, this relation should be preserved. So "push" really _should_ mean

	ssh other-end 'git-pull'

whether it's a safe operation or not - if not, then GIT should have nothing called "push". But the current "push" is really an opposite of "fetch", so it should be called "upload", I believe.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.