Hi, On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote: > > > I think its probably too late to change the UI[*1*] but I think > > it is definately an issue for folks learning Git. Calling push > > push, fetch fetch and fetch+merge pull is probably a design flaw. > > IMHO it probably should have been something like: > > > > Current Shoulda Been > > --------------- ---------------- > > git-push git-push > > git-fetch git-pull > > git-pull . foo git-merge foo > > git-pull git-pull --merge > > git-merge git-merge-driver > > > > in other words pull does the download and doesn't automatically > > start a merge unless --merge was also given and git-merge is a > > cleaner wrapper around the Grand Unified Merge Driver that makes > > it easier to start a merge. > > I must say that I second this. Although I'm rather familiar with GIT I > still feel unconfortable with the current naming and behavior. Originally, I wanted to shut up about this issue. But since there are two voices against the current naming, I want to speak for it. When I was introduced to CVS, _I_ found the _CVS_ names misleading. I thought that cvs update would throw away my changes. So let's face it, a single name cannot possibly convey the meaning to that many people, and therefore, it is _necessary_ to have a nice short introduction, after which users actually know that git-pull is a fetch + merge. Once you know it, what can possibly go wrong? ;-) Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html