Re: EasyGit Integration

[Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>]

2009/6/9 Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
> On 2009.06.09 15:52:46 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> To be honest, I'm not convinced svn's use of the word "revert" is
>> really right, though.  Git's isn't *really* right either, since it
>> actually makes a new commit, it doesn't remove the old one like it
>> sounds like it does.  Maybe 'reverse' would be a better name for what
>> git does, and we should just introduce another word for what svn does.
>>  (With CVS, you just deleted the file and then did a checkout/update
>> on it again, which made sense to me.  That works in git too.)
>>
>> Crazy idea: we could actually make 'git revert' do both: given a
>> commit, it applies the reverse as it does now.  Given filenames, it
>> simply brings them back to HEAD.  But maybe that's too crazy.
>
> Doesn't seem that crazy to me. But maybe a bit problematic if you want
> to support both, "git checkout -- ." and "git checkout HEAD -- .". And
> adding DWIMmery there seems dangerous, as in:
>
> git revert == git checkout -- .
>
> git revert HEAD ==
>  no uncommitted changes = revert commit HEAD
>  uncommitted changes = revert to HEAD

Well, that's what I meant by "crazy" :)

Since so many of the other suggestions in eg are so simple and
non-conflicting, perhaps it's best to drop this branch of discussion
until the non-controversial bits are adopted.  It would be bad to lose
other great improvements just because this one command is
problematic...

Have fun,

Avery