(unknown)

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 20:12:37 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:

quoted

Jan Hudec [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 18:10:10 +0100, Benoit Sigoure wrote:

quoted

On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Andy Parkins wrote:
While we're discussing bad names, as someone already pointed out, I 

agree 

quoted

quoted

quoted

it's sad that "git push" is almost always understood as being the 

opposite 

quoted

quoted

quoted

of "git pull".

Well, it is an oposite of pull. Compared to it, it is limited in that 

it will

quoted

quoted

not do a merge and on the other hand extended to *also* be an oposite 

of

quoted

quoted

fetch, but still oposite of pull is push.

With the same reasoning the opposite of a duck is a lobster, since a
lobster has not only fewer wings, but also more legs.

No.

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.

In the case remote branches are used push and pull are not exactly 
opposite. Pull uses the remote branch and push does not.

                                 .
               LOCAL REPO        .       REMOTE REPO
    .............................................................
    a_local_branch ------------ push ------------->a_local_branch 
         ^                       .                       |
         |                       .                       |
         |                       .                       |
       merge                     .                       |
         |                       .                       |
         |                       .                       |
    a_remote_branch <----------fetch ---------------------
                                 .

Cheers,
Michael