Jan Hudec writes: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:50:35 -0500, Michael Poole wrote: >> Jan Hudec writes: >> >> > 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. >> >> I think that is in absolute agreement with David: Ducks swim on the >> surface of the water and lobsters swim underneath. Why consider the >> different features on top of where they swim? >> >> The thing about git-pull that surprises so many users is the merge. >> There's a separate command to do that step, and git-pull had a fairly >> good excuse to do the merge before git's 1.5.x remote system was in >> place, but now the only really defensible reason for its behavior is >> history. > > When I first looked at hg -- and that was long before I looked at git -- > I was surprised that their pull did NOT merge and you had to do a separate > step. Partly because doing those two steps is quite common. Frequency of use is a good argument for having one command that does both. It is not a good argument that "fetch, then merge" should be called "pull" or is the opposite of "push". Michael Poole - 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
