I just cannot do otherwise than cheer this with applause.
Even if I have a clear preference for GIT's _technology_, I still think
that the HG user interface is more convivial. I even been thinking
about writing something like an hg-like frontend to GIT from time to
time just so that GIT could then be better compared to (and actually
just used like) HG.
I still think that the GIT user interface sucks in many ways. The
confusion between pull, fetch and push is still my favorite, along with
the locale vs remote branch issue. Maybe we'll better handle the branch
issue eventually, but it would be so much intuitive to split branch
merging out of git-pull, and make git-pull be the same as git-fetch
(maybe deprecating git-fetch in the process) so push and pull are really
_only_ opposite of each other.
If the fetch+merge behavior (which I think should really be refered as
pull+merge) is still desirable, then it should be called git-update and
be no more than a single shell script line such as
git_pull && git_merge"
This is really what most people expect from such a command name based
on obvious historical reasons. The lack of any branch argument to
git-pull and git-merge could be defined as using the first defined
remote branch by default. But having git-pull performing merges is IMHO
overloading the word and goes against most people's expectations.
Nicolas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
