Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We already came up with a better wording, namely "upstream", and used > in in "git push --set-upstream". Probably a next step would be to > deprecate any other occurence of --track meaning the same thing That doesn't make much sense to me; "upstream" and "track" are not alternatives; rather, they're complementary: "upstream" is a _thing_, and "track" is an _action_ -- one _tracks_ _upstream_. "--track", then, merely implies "upstream", which seems fine to me, as I'm not sure there's anything else it could refer to. I think the original post, while well-meaning is a bit overwrought, and reflects the difficulty in learning any new system as much as it does any inconsistency in git's terminology[*] -- Git's huge sin, after all (judging from most complaints I see about it), is that It Doesn't Use Exactly The Same Model (and thus Terminology) That CVS Did... [SVN's great sin, of course, is that It Does (interpret "CVS" liberally here).] [*] Git is certainly guilty of using inconsistent terminology -- cached/staged/index/yada is my personal complaint -- but I don't think to anywhere near the degree implied by that post. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. -- 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