On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:30:55 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The form I use is actually a lot simpler (conceptually) than the "short"
> > form.
> >
> > When you do
> >
> > git pull <reponame> <branchname>
>
> Yes, that's what the user almost always wants. The UI problem here is
> that the conceptually simpler form is syntactically longer, (which
> means users aren't likely to find it).
Yeah.
And this is something I absolutely agree with. Our default branches for
"pull" are horrible. You can "fix" it, but you can only fix it by adding
_explicit_ branches to your .git/config file by hand, so I don't think
that's actually a real fix at all. We should just fix the default (where
even a "I don't know what branch you want" _error_ would be preferable
over the current situation).
Along with the "git checkout <tag>" thing, I think these two things are
definitely worth just fixing.
> The behavior is sane, but having to always type the branch name
> specifically because it never changes... that's a user-interface bug.
Yeah. Each branch should
(a) have a "default source" initialized on the initial "clone"
(b) have a way to set the source afterwards
(c) error out if you do just a "git pull" or "git pull remotename" if
there is no default branch for the current local branch for that
remote.
We actually have (b) in a weak form right now ("weak" because it requires
you to manually edit the config file: we've got the mechanism, but not a
nice UI for it), but (a) and (c) are just broken.
And yeah, we should allow pulling into a branch that hasn't been
initialized.
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