Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: >> 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 > > Well, of all compromizes this is probably the best one so far. I would > have prefered to bite the bullet and fix "pull" instead of adding yet > more commands. But if the consensus is that there is no way on earth > that "pull" can be salvaged then get/put is probably more enjoyable than > download/upload. This way pull/fetch/push could still be available > (albeit burried somewhere out of sight). I still think in the long run you would be better off giving separate names to Porcelains because I am sure you are going to find the next command to "fix", you cannot suddenly change the semantics of the command, and you soon run out of alternative ways to name the action and you in addition have to explain the differences between fetch and get to new users. At least, with "ig pull", you can dismiss all the broken git-x Porcelain-ish by saying "Oh, git-x user-level commands had inconsistent semantics and broken UI so do not use them anymore -- they are still there only to help old timers transition. The user level commands are now called ig-x and ig stands for improved git". But that's a very minor detail and can be fixed when we hit the wall, so let's wait and see what happens. Please consider my gh/gu/cg/whatever dropped. I think get/put is much better than suddenly changing what pull means and is shorter to type than x-load; I am Ok with them. Although I think these words are tainted by SCCS, I do not think anybody cares. - 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