From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Parkins Subject: Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change? Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:11:02 +0000 Message-ID: <200711262011.02689.andyparkins@gmail.com> References: <200711252248.27904.jnareb@gmail.com> <2A34D324-48A4-49EF-9D4E-5B9469A0791D@lrde.epita.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ansi_x3.4-1968" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Benoit Sigoure X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 26 21:11:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IwkIj-0003H8-AM for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:11:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752518AbXKZULL (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:11:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752163AbXKZULJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:11:09 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]:45358 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751494AbXKZULI (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:11:08 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so1015482ugc for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=IeYx6z0IfBRJT8X09f47KbTcpkp7VNL2TwxDzSxxv/o=; b=wBicZoxAi7L5ggrCEpV6xtE2LQQDDfysqBC2L3HsrLCBDSu6FljImSr/2+ovTVv7Bk4czRDthvqhlhnqAKmAVkiUIptnysePk2NplorqpZ+9lLUutfqE8kUr0zIJXwnLBEALuohUNYZyUln5Os5G3PlkZ8erKRNN+FvJAt+VkCI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=QYH6iz4hQ8kKISOCesvahOBADgo+VcGKEmezTlCwZsVku8xvE9t4d0Fd2NjNylWnm9avtiC43vKyI2t/VvZfKaxqQWRhhUO2j1IPO4OF88NVjIFjQMwtx/3L8XeHVdV/ksxg02TqmoezVPc7hS7JtygAJVqq0td+DaBE+3zTxjU= Received: by 10.66.249.8 with SMTP id w8mr167474ugh.1196107866869; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from grissom.local ( [84.201.153.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e1sm1395793ugf.2007.11.26.12.11.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:06 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 In-Reply-To: <2A34D324-48A4-49EF-9D4E-5B9469A0791D@lrde.epita.fr> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Monday 2007, November 26, Benoit Sigoure wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Andy Parkins wrote: > > - libgit would have come first > > I warmly second that. > > > - "git revert" should be called "git invert" > > - "git revert" would (maybe) be "git reset" > > But here, I have to disagree. Why would you want to call "git- > revert" "git-reset"? I don't; you're reading it the wrong way around. I think current revert should actually be called invert. "revert" means to move back to a previous point. That is not at all what git-revert does, what it actually does is to apply the opposite of the given commit - i.e. an inversion. Revert on the other hand would be the perfect name for current git-reset. > I know it's annoying that commands with the same name do different > things in SVN/CVS but I don't think it's a reason to necessarily I know that very well; nor did I pick any of those suggestions based on what svn does. There is no other VCS that uses "invert" as far as I know. Nor does any other VCS use "revert" the way I'd like; so I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that I chose those as a copy of another VCS. What I would like (ideally, with a time machine) is those words, which have a well defined meaning in English, to match more closely with their function in the VCS. "revert" is definitely not right. > adapt to them. There are plenty of misnomers already anyway > (checkout, commit, add). I know; but the question was "what if we could start again". I don't see too many problems with checkout and commit as it happens. They both seem like adequate verbs to describe the operations they perform. We could perhaps quibble about the extra functionality that they've both gained, but that isn't a naming fault, and the extensions are natural extensions for users of git. Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@gmail.com