On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote: > Anyway, now I've just gone and blown all my secret plans for changing > git in ways to make it less intimidating for new users. I just cannot do otherwise than cheer this with applause. Even if I have a clear preference for GIT's _technology_, I still think that the HG user interface is more convivial. I even been thinking about writing something like an hg-like frontend to GIT from time to time just so that GIT could then be better compared to (and actually just used like) HG. I still think that the GIT user interface sucks in many ways. The confusion between pull, fetch and push is still my favorite, along with the locale vs remote branch issue. Maybe we'll better handle the branch issue eventually, but it would be so much intuitive to split branch merging out of git-pull, and make git-pull be the same as git-fetch (maybe deprecating git-fetch in the process) so push and pull are really _only_ opposite of each other. If the fetch+merge behavior (which I think should really be refered as pull+merge) is still desirable, then it should be called git-update and be no more than a single shell script line such as git_pull && git_merge" This is really what most people expect from such a command name based on obvious historical reasons. The lack of any branch argument to git-pull and git-merge could be defined as using the first defined remote branch by default. But having git-pull performing merges is IMHO overloading the word and goes against most people's expectations. Nicolas - 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