From: Avery Pennarun Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:42:33 GMT Subject: Re: EasyGit Integration Message-ID: <32541b130906091342s7dd6064fud2205bee8af95aab@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090609203747.GB13781@atjola.homenet> 2009/6/9 Björn Steinbrink : > On 2009.06.09 15:52:46 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote: >> To be honest, I'm not convinced svn's use of the word "revert" is >> really right, though.  Git's isn't *really* right either, since it >> actually makes a new commit, it doesn't remove the old one like it >> sounds like it does.  Maybe 'reverse' would be a better name for what >> git does, and we should just introduce another word for what svn does. >>  (With CVS, you just deleted the file and then did a checkout/update >> on it again, which made sense to me.  That works in git too.) >> >> Crazy idea: we could actually make 'git revert' do both: given a >> commit, it applies the reverse as it does now.  Given filenames, it >> simply brings them back to HEAD.  But maybe that's too crazy. > > Doesn't seem that crazy to me. But maybe a bit problematic if you want > to support both, "git checkout -- ." and "git checkout HEAD -- .". And > adding DWIMmery there seems dangerous, as in: > > git revert == git checkout -- . > > git revert HEAD == >  no uncommitted changes = revert commit HEAD >  uncommitted changes = revert to HEAD Well, that's what I meant by "crazy" :) Since so many of the other suggestions in eg are so simple and non-conflicting, perhaps it's best to drop this branch of discussion until the non-controversial bits are adopted. It would be bad to lose other great improvements just because this one command is problematic... Have fun, Avery