Re: Pull is Evil

From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Date: Apr 30, 2014, 21:48 UTC
Message-ID: <53616FA2.2010405@xiplink.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa9b2egcy.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On 14-04-30 04:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 
> Maybe I was unclear.
> 
> I didn't mean "replace 'pull' with 'update' everywhere".  I meant
> "Introduce 'update' that lets integrate your history into that from
> the remote, which is to integrate in a direction opposite from how
> 'pull' does".

That's what I understood.

> Then the downstream people (i.e. by definition, most of us) would
> use "git update" while integrators would use "git pull".  There is
> no workflow assumption if we do so.

Isn't merge-or-rebase a workflow assumption? I don't think there's a good rule of thumb for that choice. Downstream-vs-Integrator doesn't seem like enough, nor does it seem as simple as "'git pull' should merge" and "'git update' should rebase" (or vice-versa).

But maybe I'm wrong and there really is only one salient axis (be it that one or another).

>> I don't think we'll ever be able to create a One "Git Pull" To Rule Them All.
> 
> Yes, that is exactly why I mentioned "git update".

I doubt that a new, additional command with different workflow assumptions will be any more successful.

> Another way not to make any workflow assumption is to ask the user
> to tell us.

Yes.  But I wouldn't expect a new user to be able to answer.

M.