Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename

From: "Wesley J. Landaker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:01:43 -0600

On Tuesday 20 October 2009 17:11:32 Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Rast <[email-masked]> writes:
> > Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[email-masked]> writes:
> >
> > ...
> > There would not be a configuration option.
> > ...
> >
> >> It's not even funny.
> 
> Re-read what you were responding to and notice that I was commenting on
> Wesley's proposal that _is_ about a configuration variable.

Yes, I brought up the configuration variable, not Thomas. 

My main goal was to try to suggest a transition plan that would be less 
painful, but maybe it was actually worse. After reading Junio's response I 
think I agree that going down that path might be the worst of both worlds, 
but the basic model I was proposing (even if it's a bad idea in this case) 
was largely basing on (my perceived impression of) how the recent changes to 
push behavior were staged (i.e. with deprecation, new configuration 
variables, etc).

I still think that, long term, making push and pull symmetric, EITHER by 1) 
making push also update the working tree (in some sane way that I don't have 
a proposal for) or 2) making pull be just about transfering objects, not 
also merging (in some reasonable way that doesn't break useability, like 
also adding "git update" or something at the same time) would be an overall 
benefit.