Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Nov 15, 2006, 15:10 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611151000460.2591@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0611151454250.13772@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> > 
> > > 2) "pull" and "push" should be symmetrical operations
> > 
> > I think that makes a lot of sense to have "gh pull" and "gh
> > push" as symmetric operations, and make "gh merge" do the
> > fast-forward and 3-way merge magic done in the current "git
> > pull".  These three words would have a lot saner meaning.
> 
> 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.

I completely agree that creating yet another command prefix for basically the same tools would be a disaster. We have "git" already so let's stick to it and make its usage just more sane.

Show 5 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

Well, of all compromizes this is probably the best one so far. I would have prefered to bite the bullet and fix "pull" instead of adding yet more commands. But if the consensus is that there is no way on earth that "pull" can be salvaged then get/put is probably more enjoyable than download/upload. This way pull/fetch/push could still be available (albeit burried somewhere out of sight).