On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:47 +0100 (CET) Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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. This makes a lot of sense. The "git" command isn't damaged so bad that it can't be saved in a backward compatible way, at least for a transition period. Adding a new command name seems like a step backward. > 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). Both these ideas sound like a step in the right direction too. Sean - 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