merge vs pull

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Martin Pool wrote:
>*merge*
>  Take the work in another branch, and integrate it into the destination
>  branch.  Let me review, test, or edit the results before committing it
>  into my branch.  After committing, I have a new revision which
>  descends from the tip of both branches.
>
>*pull*
>  Update a replica of another branch.  This can only succeed if the 
>  source is a descendent of the tip of the target.  After pulling, the 
>  destination has the same history as the source.  Pull doesn't make a
>  new revision.
>
>When should I use pull?
>
>  When you're keeping a local replica, mirror or backup of a branch stored
>  somewhere else. 
>
>When should I use merge?
>
>  When you want to review and integrate changes, making a new revision 
>  to show you did the merge.
>
>I can see it would be nice to have one less command and yet I think both
>use cases are valuable.

(As an interested RCS spectator) I'd like to add 2c and vote for leaving it
how it is -- the current behaviour is perfectly acceptable IMHO.  (This
explanation should go in the docs :)