From: David Mansfield Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:58:58 GMT Subject: Re: Change "pull" to _only_ download, and "git update"=pull+merge? Message-ID: <4266ECC2.6060202@cobite.com> In-Reply-To: <20050420211505.GE19112@pasky.ji.cz> Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:32:35PM CEST, I got a letter > where Ingo Molnar told me that... > >>* Petr Baudis wrote: >> >> >>>>yet another thing: what is the canonical 'pasky way' of simply nuking >>>>the current files and checking out the latest tree (according to >>>>.git/HEAD). Right now i'm using a script to: >>>> >>>> read-tree $(tree-id $(cat .git/HEAD)) >>>> checkout-cache -a >>>> >>>>(i first do an 'rm -f *' in the working directory) >>>> >>>>i guess there's an existing command for this already? >>> >>>git cancel >> >>hm, that's a pretty unintuitive name though. How about making it 'git >>checkout' and providing a 'git checkout -f' option to force the >>checkout? (or something like this) > > > Since it does not really checkout. Ok, it does, but that's only small > part of it. It just cancels whatever local changes are you doing in the > tree and bring it to consistent state. When you have a merge in progress > and after you see the sheer number of conflicts you decide to get your > hands off, you type just git cancel. Doing basically anything with your > tree (not only local changes checkout would fix, but also various git > operations, including git add/rm and git seek) can be easily fixed by > git cancel. How about 'git revert'? Most editors and word processors use that idiom for revert to saved copy, with the obvious parallel here. David