Re: Git user survey and `git pull`

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Sep 21, 2006, 17:12 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0609211908580.19042@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609211259340.2627@xanadu.home>

Hi,

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> 
> > I think its probably too late to change the UI[*1*] but I think
> > it is definately an issue for folks learning Git.  Calling push
> > push, fetch fetch and fetch+merge pull is probably a design flaw.
> > IMHO it probably should have been something like:
> > 
> >   Current            Shoulda Been
> >   ---------------    ----------------
> >   git-push           git-push
> >   git-fetch          git-pull
> >   git-pull . foo     git-merge foo
> >   git-pull           git-pull --merge
> >   git-merge          git-merge-driver
> > 
> > in other words pull does the download and doesn't automatically
> > start a merge unless --merge was also given and git-merge is a
> > cleaner wrapper around the Grand Unified Merge Driver that makes
> > it easier to start a merge.
> 
> I must say that I second this.  Although I'm rather familiar with GIT I 
> still feel unconfortable with the current naming and behavior.

Originally, I wanted to shut up about this issue. But since there are two voices against the current naming, I want to speak for it.

When I was introduced to CVS, _I_ found the _CVS_ names misleading. I thought that cvs update would throw away my changes.

So let's face it, a single name cannot possibly convey the meaning to that many people, and therefore, it is _necessary_ to have a nice short introduction, after which users actually know that git-pull is a fetch + merge. Once you know it, what can possibly go wrong? ;-)

Ciao, Dscho