> I disagree. This already forces you to have two branches (one to pull > from to get the data, mirroring the remote branch, one for your real > work) uselessly and needlessly. > > ... > These naming issues may appear silly but I think they matter big time > for usability, intuitiveness, and learning curve (I don't want git-pasky > become another GNU arch). >
Not that it is worth that much, but my $0.02 is that Petr is right on this one. I want something that allows me to get the objects into my local repository without funking with my working directory. As a long time CVS user, "git update" would do what I expect it to. I don't have any pre-conceptions about what "pull" does, so it doesn't phase me if pull is used for this purpose. However, perhaps pull means something in some other SCM that would cause confusion for others? Some alternatives to "pull" are offered: hoard, gather, make-local, download. Regards, jon. -- homepage: http://www.zeta.org.au/~jon/ blog: http://orwelliantremors.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
