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.
Michael Poole
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 14:50:35 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Jan Hudec writes:
quoted
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.
--
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec [off-list ref]