4 ms·
I'm being pedantic here, but the reason I prefer pull is because it feels more general than a "merge," which to me precludes a fetch/rebase. I guess you could c
by banachtarski 7y ago
I'm being pedantic here, but the reason I prefer pull is because it feels more general than a "merge," which to me precludes a fetch/rebase. I guess you could consider it a merge -ff-only, but in a mergeless-master workflow, "merge request" felt awkward.
- auspex 7y agoI agree with you here. The git repo "pulls" changes from a remote instance/branch and then merges the changes.
- ryanmcbride 7y agoThat makes a lot of sense
- Nimitz14 7y agoBut it's wrong. It's actually a "push" instead of "pull", the direction is away from what you're doing not towards you!
- banachtarski 7y agoIt’s a pull “request,” i.e. a request for someone else to pull your changes. I don’t follow your argument.
- Nimitz14 7y agoOr viewed from another perspective (the person initiating) a request for someone else to accept the changes you are pushing.