From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:01:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts
Message-ID: <ejdapj$vc0$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611141518590.2591@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> If the fetch+merge behavior (which I think should really be refered as 
> pull+merge) is still desirable, then it should be called git-update and 
> be no more than a single shell script line such as
> 
>         git_pull && git_merge"
> 
> This is really what most people expect from such a command name based 
> on obvious historical reasons.  The lack of any branch argument to 
> git-pull and git-merge could be defined as using the first defined 
> remote branch by default.  But having git-pull performing merges is IMHO 
> overloading the word and goes against most people's expectations.

By the way, is anyone doing _remote_ octopus pull (true pull, not with . as
repository)?

We can always have --merge arguments to git-pull, and --fetch argument to
git-merge.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git