Hi, On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > 1) make "git init" an alias for "git init-db". > > Or even better, have "gh init". Please no. It only makes things even more confusing. "git init" is perfect as it is. We can always have internal aliases from "init-db" to "init" to account for older usages. > > 2) "pull" and "push" should be symmetrical operations > > I think that makes a lot of sense to have "gh pull" and "gh > push" as symmetric operations, and make "gh merge" do the > fast-forward and 3-way merge magic done in the current "git > pull". These three words would have a lot saner meaning. I am really opposed to do "gh pull". Not only because of "gh" being completely confusing (we already _have_ "git", and for porcelains different TLAs), but "pull" _really_ is confusing by now. And Mercurial did not help one wit by insisting on their own interpretation. Why not do something like "get/put" instead? It is - easier to remember - not bogus (AFAICT the meaning is not used in diametrical senses) - shorter to type than download/upload As for "git merge": Just by the number of arguments you can discern between the original usage and the new usage, so I am all in favour of replacing "git pull <blabla>" by "git merge <blabla>". Where "<blabla>" can be a branch or a remote or a URL (with cogito style #branchname). 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