Re: Pull is Evil (was: Re: A failing attempt to use Git in a centralized environment)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 30, 2014, 14:55 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqppjyhnom.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <536106EA.5090204@xiplink.com>

Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> But I'm definitely biased because I think pull is pretty much broken:
>
> * New users are encouraged to use pull, but all too often the default
> fetch-then-merge behaviour doesn't match their expectations and they end up
> starting threads like this one on the mailing list.
>
> * If we change pull's default behaviour, we'll just be shifting the
> mismatched expectations onto the other half of the new users who would be
> happy with fetch-then-merge.
>
> * I'm not sure why new users are taught to use pull.  I suspect it's because
> it tries to hide the idea of local-vs-remote branches, and people writing git
> tutorials don't want to overwhelm new users with what seems to be an internal
> detail.  But these notions are really fundamental to using git effectively,
> and I think pull does everyone a disservice by trying to gloss them over.
>
> Anyway, rather than ranting on I'll just suggest that there's not enough
> commonality between the ways people use git to make it worthwhile trying to
> teach pull how to deal with a significant number of them.  I think the pull
> command should be deprecated and quietly retired as a failed experiment.

I almost agree with the first sentence in the last paragraph, and your bulletted list above supports it.

I am not sure how the second sentence can follow as its consequence.

If the conclusion were "maybe adding a 'git update' to match the expectation of those who build on top of the work of others (aka CVS/SVN style) more closely and teaching new users to use that instead of 'git pull' may be a good way forward", I can sort of understand (if I may not be able to immediately agree with, until I can regurgitate the ramifications of such a change) it.