On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:45:58 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote:
I think that's just and accident of git-merge having such a bad
syntax, (requiring a merge message, not using -m for that, requiring
two heads instead of defaulting to current, etc.). So the result is
accepting another bad syntax "pull ." for an operation that really is
merge.
I think we'll be doing better when there is a stronger correlation
between the concepts of the operations and the command names for
carrying them out.
Plus, when I'm teaching "fetch everything first, then manipulate it
locally", (which is what I teach, since that's the only way I use
git), then the "." looks really out of place when I teach the 'merge'
command. I end up saying, "Oh, that's there because you could do the
fetch and merge all in one step if you really wanted, but I never do
that.".
And that's because I _do_ teach fetch first, as you've suggested.
That doesn't work. I know I went looking at the git-merge
documentation when I started to learn git. "It can't really be this
hard, can it?" was my reaction to it. And then only after attending a
tutorial did I learn that "pull ." is the way it's really done.
That's nothing more than a user-interface trap for new users, plain
and simple.
The real fix is to stop glossing over git-merge and just give it a
usable syntax.
-Carl