From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:49:51 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] remote: add new sync command Message-ID: <7vvcquy05c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Felipe Contreras writes: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King writes: >> >>> That makes sense. But I think it fits in with git's current UI to do >>> this via a combination of push options and refspecs. Even if we want to >>> wrap it in some "git remote" command for convenience, I think what >>> you're asking should be implemented as part of "git push". >> >> Yeah, I think it makes sense to give --prune to "push" just like "fetch" >> already has. These two are the primary (and in the ideal world, only) >> operations that talk to the outside world. "remote add -f" might have been >> a tempting "convenience" feature, but I personally think it probably was a >> mistake for the exact reason that letting anything but "push" and "fetch" >> talk to the outside world just invites more confusion. There does not have >> to be 47 different ways to do the same thing. > > What about 'git remote update'? If you asked, I would have to say that is probably a worse mistake in the hindsight. I am guessing that back them "remote" command might have been a tool meant only for the read-only customers and the verb "update" may have made sense as "update me from the upstream", but these days "remote" also helps the aspect of pushing things out (e.g. "set-url --push"), so "update" that does not specify the direction is totally an inappropriate verb. You _could_ argue that adding subcommands and options related to pushing to "git remote" was a mistake. I don't care too much which side you would choose to blame, but taken as the whole, in the current set of options, subcommands and what "git remote" command does, "update" is a complete misnomer.