Should Cogito scripts be renamed?

  Hello,

  I'd like to hear the opinion of Cogito users about renaming the Cogito
commands accordingly to the GIT big renames. This would be:

	cg-pull -> cg-fetch
	cg-update -> cg-pull

  The pros: Terminological consistency with GIT. Some also might perceive
this naming like clearer (I don't, but that's probably the matter of
your environment of origin and opinion).

  The cons: Breaking backwards compatibility and confusing users. The
situation is more vexing since 'cg-pull' would change its meaning from
fetching to fetching+merging. So that alone would require four-phased
renaming (cg-fetch alias, removing cg-pull, wait long time, cg-pull
alias, removing cg-update).

  I'm actually rather opposed to the change. Cogito is getting
established, real-world projects and a lot of people in general already
use it, and this would break the finger habits for all of them, etc.
What do you think?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone.  -- Alan Cox

So, like, the other day Petr asked:

 I'd like to hear the opinion of Cogito users about renaming the Cogito
commands accordingly to the GIT big renames. This would be:

cg-pull -> cg-fetch
cg-update -> cg-pull

It took me a good long while of confusion before I
realized that cg and git were inconsistent in their
command names and meanings here.  It was the source
of Head Scratching and Not Understanding.

I am firmly of the opinion that CG should either rename 
these commands to be more consistent with GIT, or else
make up totally new, different names unrelated to git
entirely.  The reuse of "pull" alone will be, IMO, a
constant source of documentation and explanation headaches.

As with git, sooner rather than later, please.

jdl

On Friday 16 September 2005 02:07, jdl@freescale.com wrote:

So, like, the other day Petr asked:

quoted

 I'd like to hear the opinion of Cogito users about renaming the Cogito
commands accordingly to the GIT big renames. This would be:

cg-pull -> cg-fetch
cg-update -> cg-pull

...
As with git, sooner rather than later, please.

Same option here.
The 4-phased renaming could be shortened by letting cg-pull always ask
the following if eg. .git/no-cg-pull-warning does not exist:

 Warning: cg-pull includes merging after fetch since cogito 0.15
          Use cg-fetch to do the fetching phase only
 [To get rid of this warning, run 'touch .git/no-cg-pull-warning']
 Do you want to continue (y/n) [n] ?

Getting rid of this annoying question should be easy enough everybody,
and via the template-system even for git packers...
Even if disabled, I would still do

 Remember: cg-pull includes merging after fetch since cogito 0.15
           Press Ctrl-C in the next 2 seconds to abort.

Josef