Re: unmerging feature branches

[Alejandro Martinez Ruiz <alex@flawedcode.org>]

On Tue 23 Oct 2007, 10:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> So a "revert" is fundamentally different from a "undo". Most of the time 
> 
> [cut]
> 
> So sometimes the behaviour of "git revert" will be exactly what people 
> expected and wanted ("good, I'll never get that commit again when I pull, 
> because I told git that I don't want that commit"), and sometimes it will 
> _not_ be what people expected and wanted ("oh, I didn't get that commit, 
> even though I was now ready for it - because I had reverted it back when I 
> was *not* ready for it").
> 
> See? The logic is exactly the same in both cases, but one was good, the 
> other bad, and the only difference was really the mindset of the user.
> 
> A tool can't ever get "mindset of the user" differences right. At least 
> not until we add the "esp option" ;)
> 
> So I really don't want to push this as a problem or deficiency, I think 
> it's a good thing. But it's a good thing only when people are *aware* of 
> what "revert" really means.

So how about an "undo" command or a switch for revert with a special
meaning like "hey, this one is a nice commit, but it ain't ready yet,
I'd like you to ignore I ever committed the thing when merging or
rebasing again, thanks"?

Alex