From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20081030232717.GB10779@mit.edu> References: <1225338485-11046-1-git-send-email-sam@vilain.net> <20081030143918.GB14744@mit.edu> <1225389068.19891.28.camel@maia.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Sam Vilain To: Sam Vilain X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 31 00:28:56 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Kvgwf-0006U9-Al for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:28:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754496AbYJ3X1U (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753530AbYJ3X1U (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:20 -0400 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:37554 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754280AbYJ3X1T (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:19 -0400 Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1Kvgv7-0003s9-WC; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:18 -0400 Received: from tytso by closure.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kvgv7-0005Ox-D4; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:27:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1225389068.19891.28.camel@maia.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:51:08AM -0700, Sam Vilain wrote: > > Well, I don't have strong feelings on the exact command name used; I > suggested "undo", probably also ambiguous. But still, a significant > number of users are surprised when they type 'git revert' and they get a > backed out patch. Yeah, that's why I suggested "git revert-file". It's less ambiguous than "undo", and it's easier for people used to "hg revert" and "svn revert" to find "git revert-file". And, it won't be run accidentally by old-timers who are used to the old (to be deprecated) "git revert". But I'm not that picky about the name; I just missed the "git undo" proposal in your patch. > Making it plain "revert" would violate expectations of existing users; > it seems a better idea to just deprecate it, and point the users to the > new method - cherry-pick --revert - or the command they might have meant > - whatever that becomes. Yup, I agree; that's why I suggested "git revert-file". - Ted