Dunno. I feel this is a bit overboard. Actually the naming problem is
rather localized to one command, namely git-pull. In my opinion going
with yet another namespace which would rather add to the confusion not
clear it.
The best way to avoid user confusion is to remove the source of the
confusion not let it live. In other words I think we should _fix_
git-pull instead of replacing it. People are already confused about it
so simply fixing this command will have a net confusion reduction. Yet
we're not talking about "suddenly doing something completely different"
either. If git-pull doesn't merge automatically anymore it is easy to
tell people to use git-merge after a pull.
"You pull the remote changes with 'git-pull upstream,, then you can
merge them in your current branch with 'git-merge upstream'."
Isn't it much simpler to understand (and to teach) that way?
Also I don't think using git-upload and git-download is much better.
This adds yet more commands that do almost the same as existing ones but
with a different name which is yet not necessarily fully adequate. I
for example would think that "download" is more like git-clone than
git-fetch or git-pull.
Let's face it: HG got it right with pull and push and newbies have much
less difficulty grokking it. We screwed it by not using the most
intuitive semantic of a pull and locking the word "pull" away is not the
better solution given all considerations. Why just not admit it and
avoid being different than HG just for the sake of it?
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
