From: Wincent Colaiuta Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:19:12 GMT Subject: Re: Git terminology: remote, add, track, stage, etc. Message-ID: <8B950268-7F6E-40E5-9D6C-F150EBEA4F0C@wincent.com> In-Reply-To: El 19/10/2010, a las 06:49, Miles Bader escribió: > I think the original post, while well-meaning is a bit overwrought, and > reflects the difficulty in learning any new system as much as it does > any inconsistency in git's terminology[*] -- Git's huge sin, after all > (judging from most complaints I see about it), is that It Doesn't Use > Exactly The Same Model (and thus Terminology) That CVS Did... I don't think it's overwrought at all. It's just pointing out a couple of obvious road-bumps in the learning curve. We should smooth out these road-bumps (in so far as we can, with respect to backward compatibility and such) rather than just hand-waving them away saying that they are a natural consequence of demolishing the CVS world view and replacing it with something better. That's not true at all; mistakes _were_ made with the terminology, and unfortunately we have to live with some of them because they can't be changed in a non-breaking way, but the changes that we _can_ make to remove the confusion, we should make them. Cheers, Wincent