On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 20:12:37 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 18:10:10 +0100, Benoit Sigoure wrote: > >> On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Andy Parkins wrote: > >> While we're discussing bad names, as someone already pointed out, I agree > >> it's sad that "git push" is almost always understood as being the opposite > >> of "git pull". > > > > Well, it is an oposite of pull. Compared to it, it is limited in that it will > > not do a merge and on the other hand extended to *also* be an oposite of > > fetch, but still oposite of pull is push. > > With the same reasoning the opposite of a duck is a lobster, since a > lobster has not only fewer wings, but also more legs. No. The basic pull/push actions are: git pull: Bring the remote ref value here. git push: Put the local ref value there. Are those not oposites? Than each command has it's different features on top of this -- pull merges and push can push multiple refs -- but in the basic operation they are oposites. -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
