Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Nov 15, 2006, 15:03 UTC
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP1131061C6974A86FF033D3AEEA0@CEZ.ICE>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0611151454250.13772@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:47 +0100 (CET) Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

> I am really opposed to do "gh pull". Not only because of "gh" being 
> completely confusing (we already _have_ "git", and for porcelains 
> different TLAs), but "pull" _really_ is confusing by now. And Mercurial 
> did not help one wit by insisting on their own interpretation.

This makes a lot of sense.  The "git" command isn't damaged so bad
that it can't be saved in a backward compatible way, at least for
a transition period.  Adding a new command name seems like a step
backward.

Show 10 quoted lines

> Why not do something like "get/put" instead? It is
> 
> - easier to remember
> - not bogus (AFAICT the meaning is not used in diametrical senses)
> - shorter to type than download/upload
> 
> As for "git merge": Just by the number of arguments you can discern 
> between the original usage and the new usage, so I am all in favour of 
> replacing "git pull <blabla>" by "git merge <blabla>". Where "<blabla>" 
> can be a branch or a remote or a URL (with cogito style #branchname).

Both these ideas sound like a step in the right direction too.