Re: [PATCH] git-checkout.txt: Document "git checkout <pathspec>" better

'restore' may be more consistent with git's internal terminology. But from an outsider's perspective, 'revert' rather than 'restore' is in my view much clearer and more consistent with other version control systems: for example 'svn revert' is what you use to revert files in the working copy.

The original issue was that I naively expected that 'git checkout PATH' would indeed just 'restore' some files, that is, create them when they are missing. Its action is rather more drastic than that.

If 'revert' is not a suitable verb because of the existing git-revert, then I suggest that 'overwrite' or 'replace' might better convey the idea of what the command does.