Re: EasyGit Integration
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Date
- Jun 9, 2009, 22:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906091535410.6847@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <51419b2c0906091530t3dfa5267s2262f979f1e9982a@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > Do you object to using 'revert' in the name of the new command or just > to having the new command take over the exact name 'revert'?
I object to changing existing meaning.
> I'd like to propose making the reverting of edits functionality > available under the command name 'revert-edits'
That's fine.
I also don't mind per se having the "git checkout" kind of semantics, where different kinds of arguments result in different kinds of behavior. I'm not convinced it's a wonderful design, but I would not object to
- old behavior: revert the commit by creating an "anti-commit":
git revert <cmit-name>
- new extension: revert the state of the working tree to the HEAD:
git revert [--] pathspec
which would kind of match the semantics of "git checkout" does.
So it's not that I object to "git revert" as a name. I just object to changing existing (and sane) semantics just for some silly person who thinks that git is just "SVN done right".
Git is _soo_ much more than just that. People need to live with the fact that it's not just a SVN clone.
Linus