From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:27:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
Message-ID: <20081030232717.GB10779@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1225389068.19891.28.camel@maia.lan>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:51:08AM -0700, Sam Vilain wrote:
> 
> Well, I don't have strong feelings on the exact command name used; I
> suggested "undo", probably also ambiguous.  But still, a significant
> number of users are surprised when they type 'git revert' and they get a
> backed out patch.

Yeah, that's why I suggested "git revert-file".  It's less ambiguous
than "undo", and it's easier for people used to "hg revert" and "svn
revert" to find "git revert-file".  And, it won't be run accidentally
by old-timers who are used to the old (to be deprecated) "git revert".
But I'm not that picky about the name; I just missed the "git undo"
proposal in your patch.

> Making it plain "revert" would violate expectations of existing users;
> it seems a better idea to just deprecate it, and point the users to the
> new method - cherry-pick --revert - or the command they might have meant
> - whatever that becomes.

Yup, I agree; that's why I suggested "git revert-file".

							- Ted