On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > 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. > > By the way, is anyone doing _remote_ octopus pull (true pull, not with . as > repository)? > > We can always have --merge arguments to git-pull, and --fetch argument to > git-merge. That would be a complete abomination if you want my opinion. Please let git-pull actually pull stuff from a remote place, and git-merge actually merge stuff only. Let's keep simple concepts mapped to simple commands please. Nothing prevents _you_ from scripting more involved operations with a single command of your liking afterwards. Nicolas