Re: vc-update for bzr etc.

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

>>> VC tries to present a uniform UI and that is good, but trying to impose
>>> a uniform semantics to all commands is asking too much.  So I think it's
>>> perfectly OK for vc-pull/update to do "bzr pull" for Bzr and
>>> "git pull" for Git, even if they don't do exactly the same thing.
>> 
>> Fair enough.  Here's an updated patch.  I renamed the new operation
>> vc-BACKEND-update-branch, and vc-update uses it preferentially if it
>> exists (falling back on the old merge-news operation if not).  For
>> vc-bzr-update-branch, it calls "bzr update" for bound branchs and
>> "bzr pull" for other branches.  Passing a prefix arg to vc-update causes
>> it to prompt for arguments to bzr.
>> 
>> WDYT?

> IMHO:
> It looks like the future is pull/push.
> If vc-pull is supported then vc-update can either use vc-pull directly
> or just issue an error directing the users to use vc-pull. 
> It does not look like a wise investment to go in the direction of
> expanding support for vc-update.

I don't see any reason why vc-pull couldn't be an alias of vc-update.


        Stefan