Re: Git terminology: remote, add, track, stage, etc.

From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Date: Oct 19, 2010, 04:49 UTC
Message-ID: <buopqv6kcsd.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpq8w1v5gce.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> We already came up with a better wording, namely "upstream", and used
> in in "git push --set-upstream".  Probably a next step would be to
> deprecate any other occurence of --track meaning the same thing

That doesn't make much sense to me; "upstream" and "track" are not alternatives; rather, they're complementary: "upstream" is a _thing_, and "track" is an _action_ -- one _tracks_ _upstream_. "--track", then, merely implies "upstream", which seems fine to me, as I'm not sure there's anything else it could refer to.

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...

[SVN's great sin, of course, is that It Does (interpret "CVS" liberally here).]

[*] Git is certainly guilty of using inconsistent terminology -- cached/staged/index/yada is my personal complaint -- but I don't think to anywhere near the degree implied by that post.

-Miles

-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.