Re: Git user survey and `git pull`

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Sep 21, 2006, 17:09 UTC
Message-ID: <20060921170922.GA4375@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609211259340.2627@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> >   Current            Shoulda Been
> >   ---------------    ----------------
> >   git-push           git-push
> >   git-fetch          git-pull
> >   git-pull . foo     git-merge foo
> >   git-pull           git-pull --merge
> >   git-merge          git-merge-driver
> > 
> > in other words pull does the download and doesn't automatically
> > start a merge unless --merge was also given and git-merge is a
> > cleaner wrapper around the Grand Unified Merge Driver that makes
> > it easier to start a merge.
> 
> I must say that I second this.  Although I'm rather familiar with GIT I 
> still feel unconfortable with the current naming and behavior.

The only way I've been able to resolve it internally is to say:

    ``I can pull the changes contained in branch foo into
	  my current working branch by `git pull . foo`.  I'm
	  not merging changes, I'm pulling them.``

Uh, yea....

As a prior user of a popular VCS which was also used by some folks on LKML and which also had a 'pull=fetch+merge' command I fully understand why its pull in Git - but I don't like it.

-- 
Shawn.