From: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:41:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename
Message-ID: <200910210041.12738.trast@student.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20091021064243.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>

Nanako Shiraishi wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
> > 1. git-fetch gets options --merge/-m and --rebase that make it behave
> >    like (current) git-pull, but requiring explicit arguments.
> >    git-pull gets a new option --merge (-m) that only enforces presence
> >    of arguments.
> >
> > 2. git-pull refuses to do any work unless given either --merge or
> >    --rebase.  Deprecation warnings for this start at the same time as
> >    (1.).
> >
> > 3. git-pull becomes a synonym for git-fetch.
> >
> > 4. git-fetch gives deprecation warnings that point the user to
> >    git-pull instead.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't understand what's the improvement in the end 
> result.
> 
> I started reading your problem description and I thought you are 
> fixing your item 'a) pull/push are not symmetric' by deprecating 
> pull, to advertize fetch/push.  Then asymmetry of push/pull stops 
> being an issue.
> 
> But it seems that eventually you will keep git-push and git-pull 
> (because git-fetch gets deprecated); you have push/pull that are 
> not symmetric.

By the time I get to that step, new-pull is current-fetch.  So by that
time, push/pull *are* supposedly symmetric.

(Only deprecating pull never occurred to me, but then I really think
the strong association between them makes it worth keeping pull as the
opposite of push.)

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch