Re: Git terminology: remote, add, track, stage, etc.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



El 19/10/2010, a las 06:49, Miles Bader escribió:

> 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...

I don't think it's overwrought at all. It's just pointing out a couple of obvious road-bumps in the learning curve.

We should smooth out these road-bumps (in so far as we can, with respect to backward compatibility and such) rather than just hand-waving them away saying that they are a natural consequence of demolishing the CVS world view and replacing it with something better. That's not true at all; mistakes _were_ made with the terminology, and unfortunately we have to live with some of them because they can't be changed in a non-breaking way, but the changes that we _can_ make to remove the confusion, we should make them.

Cheers,
Wincent



--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]