Re: Pull is Evil

On 14-04-30 04:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Maybe I was unclear.

I didn't mean "replace 'pull' with 'update' everywhere".  I meant
"Introduce 'update' that lets integrate your history into that from
the remote, which is to integrate in a direction opposite from how
'pull' does".  

That's what I understood.

Then the downstream people (i.e. by definition, most of us) would
use "git update" while integrators would use "git pull".  There is
no workflow assumption if we do so.

Isn't merge-or-rebase a workflow assumption?  I don't think there's a good
rule of thumb for that choice.  Downstream-vs-Integrator doesn't seem like
enough, nor does it seem as simple as "'git pull' should merge" and "'git
update' should rebase" (or vice-versa).

But maybe I'm wrong and there really is only one salient axis (be it that one
or another).

quoted

I don't think we'll ever be able to create a One "Git Pull" To Rule Them All.

Yes, that is exactly why I mentioned "git update".

I doubt that a new, additional command with different workflow assumptions
will be any more successful.

Another way not to make any workflow assumption is to ask the user
to tell us.

Yes.  But I wouldn't expect a new user to be able to answer.

		M.