On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > I think "fetch" is sane. Its only problem is a missing symetrical > counterpart verb, like "get" and "put". If you're a dog owner, the obvious counterpart for "fetch" is "throw" ;) I think "get" and "put" would be bad, just because of confusion with "sccs get" (ie it has that "get this file" connotations). Maybe "fetch" and "push" aren't totally diametrically opposite, but really, I don't think they are that hard to understand either. We do have the BK legacy of "pull" implying a merge, and that's fairly fundamental. It's also true that in a lot of usage schenarios, what people actually _use_ is "pull" and "push", and no, they aren't mirror images (since push will _not_ do the merge), but at the same time, from a _usage_ standpoint they really _are_ each others opposites. You "pull" to get other peoples data into your branch (and once you've internalized local branches and the merge thing, you know what this means), and you "push" to push your changes out. It really _is_ the usage schenario, and using "opposite" words really _does_ make sense. It's true that _technically_ "fetch" is the opposite of "push", but at the same time, that really is about technology, not about usage models. You normally wouldn't do a "git fetch + git push" pair. You _can_ do so, but it's not the natural way to work - unless you're just doing a mirror service. Linus - 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