From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:32:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Call Me Gitless
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0808182027240.19665@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <905315640808181624w58918a0ao939a3f0462f9dc9e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Tarmigan wrote:

> 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*