On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
quoted
But the fact is that HG (which has a growing crowd of happy campers,
maybe even larger than the BK crowd now) did work with and got used to a
sensible definition of what a "pull" is.
Guys, before you start thinking this way, the fact is, there's a lot of
happy git users.
So the reason for using "git pull" is
- bk did it that way, and like it or not, bk was the first usable
distributed system. hg is totally uninteresting.
- git itself has now done it that way for the last 18 months, and the
fact is, the people _complaining_ are a small subset of the people who
actually use git on a daily basis and don't complain.
Those arguments are somewhat flawed. If we stick to "BK did it that way
and it was first", then following that logic we would also carry a lot
of CVS baggage because "CVS did it that way, and it was the most
successful of its kind". Still, we decided not to follow CVS nor BK in
many ways already.
As for the fraction of people complaining being a small fraction of
current GIT users: that is easily explainable by the fact that most
people who would have grown the complainers group are simply not GIT
users anymore since they were turned away by GIT's current user
interface issues. The only complainers remaining are those who see
value in the GIT technology but who would like to bring more
intuitiveness to the GIT interface instead of going for the alternative
technology. And those kind of people are always few.
So don't fall for the classic "second system syndrome". The classic reason
for getting the second system wrong is because you focus on the issues
people complain about, and not on the issues that work well (because the
issues that work fine are obviously not getting a lot of attention).
The counter part of that is the possibility to fall for the "ivory tower
syndrome" where seasoned GIT users feel they are well satisfied with
what is currently available and unwilling to consider changes that would
reduce the barrier to entry for new users... simply because they are so
used to the way things work that they can't see why others have problems
with it.
If you think "pull" is confusing, I can guarantee you that _changing_ the
name is a hell of a lot more confusing.
Agreed. This is why the current discussion led to a proposition that
allows for "pull" to remain as is but to have a "get" version that would
be the alternate (saner) version.
In fact, I think a lot of the
confusion comes from cogito, not from git - the fact that cogito used
different names and different syntax was a mistake, I think.
And that '#' for branch naming in particular was (and is) total
braindamage. The native git branch naming convention is just fundamentally
much better, and allows you to very naturally fetch multiple branches at
once, in a way that cogito's syntax does not.
So when I see suggestions of using that brain-damaged cogito syntax as an
"improvement", I know for a fact that somebody hasn't thought things
through, and only thinks it's a better syntax beause of totally bogus
reasons.
Do you have comments on my proposed syntax (that would be implemented
with a git-get command) which I think doesn't really look like cogito?
I do agree that we probably could/should re-use the "git merge" name. The
current "git merge" is an esoteric internal routine, and I doubt a lot of
people use it as-is. I don't think it would be a mistake to make "git
merge" basically be an alias for "git pull", for example, and I doubt many
people would really even notice.
Agreed.
But the fact is, git isn't really that hard to work out, and the commands
aren't that complicated.
I agree with you in general, except for the "pull" behavior which is
really really odd. Maybe it made sense in the BK context, maybe it is
fine _once_ you get used to it, but otherwise it is really overloaded.
But trying to rename "pull" (or the "git" name itself) is just going to
cause more confusion than you fix.
Agreed again.