Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp

From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Nov 2, 2008, 09:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20081102095658.GH8134@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20081102041832.GB5261@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> 
> Yeah, revert-files is pretty painful to type. And I'm not looking
> forward to fielding UI questions about "why isn't it just revert?" :)
>

At least for me, I don't use it *that* often, so it's not that painful for me (I have it as an "git revert-file" as an alias already).

And the answer, "because 'git revert' used to do something else" is I think a perfectly reasonable answer. I probably do "git revert-files" about 3-5 times more often than I do "git revert", so it's a bit strange from a character count perspective, but history is history.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Somebody suggested "clobber", which I think is a bit _too_ intense.
> 
> I guess something like "retrieve" is too ambiguous. You really need
> something that implies movement of content, and something that implies
> the working directory. "Checkout" is actually not a bad name; if only we
> had "git switch" instead of "git checkout" for switching branches, it
> would be perfect.

If people really want a shorter name, how about bk's "unedit"? I'd still worry about people being able to find it, since the reality is that most of the world knows this command as revert, though.

     	     	       	     	  	     	     - Ted