Show 6 quoted lines
>On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 20:12:37 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 18:10:10 +0100, Benoit Sigoure wrote: >> >> On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Andy Parkins wrote: >> >> While we're discussing bad names, as someone already pointed out, I
agree
>> >> it's sad that "git push" is almost always understood as being the
opposite
>> >> of "git pull". >> > >> > Well, it is an oposite of pull. Compared to it, it is limited in that
it will
>> > not do a merge and on the other hand extended to *also* be an oposite
of
Show 18 quoted lines
>> > fetch, but still oposite of pull is push. >> >> With the same reasoning the opposite of a duck is a lobster, since a >> lobster has not only fewer wings, but also more legs. > >No. > >The basic pull/push actions are: > >git pull: Bring the remote ref value here. >git push: Put the local ref value there. > >Are those not oposites? > >Than each command has it's different features on top of this -- pull >merges >and push can push multiple refs -- but in the basic operation they are >oposites.
In the case remote branches are used push and pull are not exactly opposite. Pull uses the remote branch and push does not.
.
LOCAL REPO . REMOTE REPO
.............................................................
a_local_branch ------------ push ------------->a_local_branch
^ . |
| . |
| . |
merge . |
| . |
| . |
a_remote_branch <----------fetch ---------------------
.Cheers, Michael