From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:07:15 GMT
Subject: Re: for newbs = little exercise / tutorial / warmup for windows and other non-sophisticated new Git users :-) [Scanned]
Message-ID: <7vzlicyj1o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0812302356040.19665@iabervon.org>

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

> With that description, there's a bug: in addition to the above, it checks 
> out from the index any path which does match the <paths> but isn't in 
> <tree-ish>....
> ...
> (instead, you should get an error if a <path> doesn't match anything in 
> the <tree-ish> and only get those things that it matches in the 
> <tree-ish>.)
>
> I think I was too zealous sharing code back in February. I should have a 
> patch by the weekend if nobody beats me to it. (And I still think that, if 
> you hit this case, you must be confused, but git isn't helping by doing 
> what it does.)

I think that may be a good thing to do.

By the way, I am not opposed to have "git $revert <tree-ish> <path>..."
that makes the work tree and the index identical to what existed in
<tree-ish> at the named <paths>, i.e. checking out "the absense" of files
in the named directory if <path> is a subtree.  Because it is very
established to use the command verb "revert" to mean making a
counter-commit by now, we may have to use a word other than "revert" for
that purpose, though.