|
|
|
|
|
by jebblue
5065 days ago
|
|
>> All the examples he gives aren't particularly hard to understand. For example, he complains that git pull is actually git fetch and git merge... well, that's pretty obvious. No, it isn't since the words fetch and pull mean pretty much the same thing to most people. >> What part, exactly, is so hard to understand? Looking at the length of your comment...apparently a lot, for most people. I've tried to like git, I want to like git, I don't get git. So ... in Eclipse at least I use EGit to help me make git usable. Even with that tool to make git easier to understand I still find it confusing (or confounding). |
|
All I can say is that there are valid design decisions for seperating the two. That's why they created the shortcut - to make it easier to do what folks intend to do. When people do a pull, then they get what they want. That is the common nomenclature of git, pretty much everywhere.
And to be clear, the man page for git-merge can't be any clearer:
Looking at the length of your comment...apparently a lot, for most people.Which I would argue is because they are coming from SVN, and apply their experience with SVN to git. That's not really a problem for git, IMO, but more an issue for those who believe that SVN is the only way to go about doing source control.