Re: EasyGit Integration

From: Björn Steinbrink <b.steinbrink@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 9, 2009, 21:18 UTC
Message-ID: <20090609211806.GC13781@atjola.homenet>
In-Reply-To: <51419b2c0906091340i11965efcr5cf5bb4a71108fa6@mail.gmail.com>

On 2009.06.09 14:40:33 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> 2009/6/9 Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
> > On 2009.06.09 11:59:08 -0700, Scott Chacon wrote:
> >> * breaks the various things that 'checkout' does into separate
> >> commands - moves 'revert' to doing what 'checkout -- path' does
> >
> > Looking through the "eg revert" docs [1], I can't seem to find how you can
> > do "checkout -- path" with it at all. "eg revert foo" seems to be "git
> > checkout HEAD -- foo".
> 
> If you want to revert only the unstaged changes to path:
>   "checkout -- path" OR "revert --unstaged path"
> If you want to revert both staged and unstaged changes to foo:
>   "checkout HEAD -- foo" OR "revert foo"

OK, so --unstaged doesn't just select the destination, but also the source, unless you explicitly override it, right?

eg revert [--since HEAD] path
  ==> source: HEAD, destination: working tree, index

eg revert --unstaged path
  ==> source: index, destination: working tree

eg revert --unstaged --since HEAD path
  ==> source: HEAD, destination: working tree

Show 14 quoted lines

> 
> > The "eg revert" looks really confusing to me.
> > "eg revert --unstaged --in HEAD~8". Hu? Revert unstaged changes in
> > HEAD~8? Am I missing something?
> 
> Hmm.  Bad ordering, I guess -- it's revert changes in HEAD~8 to the
> working copy only (by default, revert tries to apply changes to both
> the working copy and the index).  Yeah, it doesn't read very well.
> 
> I'm not sure I like having "--in" as part of revert, partially because
> of this confusion (and partially because I don't think it's
> implementation is correct anyway).  However, I do occasionally really
> like being able to revert the change _to a single file_ made in some
> previous commit, so I haven't removed it from eg (yet?).  *shrug*

I'm not sure that "--in" is the worst thing here. To me, --unstaged is worse, because I apply the attribute "unstaged" to the changes to be reverted. And that makes no sense when I supply a commit, a commit cannot have unstaged changes. I guess that if --unstaged wasn't used to select the destination, I might have come up with "eg revert --unstaged" myself, just from seeing the options. But seeing that --unstaged can be used with a commit confused me.

Björn