# (unknown) 1 messages from 2007-11-26 to 2007-11-26. Participants: Michael Dressel. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/11024 ## Michael Dressel, 2007-11-26 20:00 Subject: (unknown) Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0711262043450.4845%40castor.milkiway.cos ``` >On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 20:12:37 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Jan Hudec 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 >> > 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 ```