On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Yes. The current "merge" started its life as Linus's porcelain > >> (we did not have fetch and pull infrastructure back then) but > >> quickly has become just a helper for pull to produce a merge > >> commit. If anybody thinks its UI is good as a general end-user > >> level command, there is a need for "head examination". > > > > If you mean "git merge" it sure needs to be brought forward. It can't > > be clearer than: > > > > git-merge the_other_branch > > > > or > > > > git-merge git://repo.com/time_machine.git > > > > to instantaneously understand what is going on. > > You mean > > git merge git://repo.com/time_machine.git#branch > > don't you (perhaps with 'master' as default branch)? Something like that. I wantee to enphasize on the "merge" command that should deal with, hey, merges. I don't know if # is a good choice for branch indicator though. 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