Re: vc-update for bzr etc.

[Chong Yidong]

Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:

> IMHO there's a benefit from implementing vc-pull/push operations.
> Then vc-update can use vc-pull after maybe asking a few questions.
> The pull/push terminology is what people are currently used to, so
> it's easier for end users.

It makes more sense to make vc-update do a pull operation for DVCS's,
and make vc-pull an alias for vc-update if necessary, instead of making
vc-pull a separate new VC operation and leaving vc-update an undefined
operation for those systems.

> [Incidentally merge-news used by VC probably means close to nothing to
> almost anyone].

Yeah, I was wondering about where the "merge-news" terminology came
from.  In CVS, it does "cvs up" on the marked files, so I assumed it
meant "an operation where you update individual files".  Since that
would be left undefined for DCVS's, that would allow vc-update a way to
distinguish between the two cases, no?