Subject: Re: Pull is Evil

From: David Kastrup <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:46:09 +0200

Andreas Krey <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:01:49 +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> 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 still doesn't quite solve my problem. If I'm tracking origin/master
> in a local master branch, I can just use 'git pull' to get my 'feature'
> branch (which is named master) updated to the current state of the origin.
> This amounts to 'integrating' origin/master into my master.

This discussion makes as much sense to me as debating whether "git
fiddle" should, in case a simple "git hammer" does not apply, should
translate to an implied "git screwdriver", and when it does, whether
more people's workflows involve turning a screw left rather than right
by default.

What the gibbins?  I don't even use git pull.  I use git fetch, and
then, depending on my needs, I rebase or merge.  git pull is not part of
my workflow exactly because it does non-connected things not translating
unambiguously to a particular identifiable workflow.  It might
sometimes, more by accident than design, do what I would have done
anyway.  But I prefer making that choice on my own, depending on the
particular circumstances.

-- 
David Kastrup