Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sep 3, 2005, 08:29 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy86e5zbf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509030233350.23242@iabervon.org>

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

> Agreed, except that git-convert-cache and git-fsck-cache actually have 
> nothing to do this the index by any name, and should probably be 
> git-convert-objects and git-fsck-objects.

You are right.

> I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they do.

OK. then they are git-http-fetch and friends. How about git-ssh-push? The counterpart of fetch-pack/clone-pack is called upload-pack, so would git-ssh-upload make things more consistent? I dunno.

> I don't think it matters very much whether something is a script or not; 
> on the other hand, it would be good to have "git" list a reasonable set of 
> commands to use through the interface, which would exclude, for example, 
> git-merge-one-file-script, and include the above commands.

Are you suggesting to drop -script from git-merge-one-file? Then git-cherry should perhaps keep its current name.