Re: Call Me Gitless
- From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
- Date
- Aug 19, 2008, 00:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LNX.1.00.0808182027240.19665@iabervon.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <905315640808181624w58918a0ao939a3f0462f9dc9e@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Tarmigan wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > (2) Some concepts in git are different from what they are used to, without > > any good reason. IOW, the concepts have room for improvement, and our > > UI is based on these faulty concepts. > > > > (3) Some concepts in git may be exactly the same with other systems, yet > > our UI may operate differently from them without any good reason. > > One confusing part of the porcelain may be the way that git's revert > is different from other systems' revert. What would people think > about something like this somewhere in git-revert(1)? > > +DISCUSSION > +---------- > +If you are more familiar with another SCM, 'git revert' may not do what you > +expect. Specifically, if you want to throw away all changes in your working > +directory, you should read the man page for 'git reset', particulary the > +'--hard' option. If you want to extract specific files as they were in a > +previous commit, you should read the man page for 'git checkout -- <filename>'.
"as they were in a particular commit"; it works for the current commit as well as older ones. And skip the first sentence; even people who aren't familiar with another SCM are reasonably likely to be attracted by the name "revert" as being descriptive of what they want to do.
I think this is a good idea, although clever placement is necessary to neither distract people who really do want "revert" nor get missed by people who are looking in the wrong place.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*