From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: EasyGit Integration Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:25:30 +1200 Message-ID: <4A2F0B8A.9010203@vilain.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Chacon , git list To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 10 03:26:42 2009 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 1MECaQ-0006vk-Fd for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:26:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753336AbZFJB0e (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:26:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752496AbZFJB0d (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:26:33 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:44731 "EHLO mail.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751181AbZFJB0c (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:26:32 -0400 Received: by mail.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 78A8221C2DD; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:26:18 +1200 (NZST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail.musashi.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from [192.168.2.22] (leibniz.catalyst.net.nz [202.78.240.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E272421C2DD; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:25:44 +1200 (NZST) User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Scott Chacon wrote: > >> * breaks the various things that 'checkout' does into separate >> commands - moves 'revert' to doing what 'checkout -- path' does >> > > No. > > NAK on this one. > > The fact that some idiotic SVN usage exists is not an excuse to break > long-standing git users. "revert" comes from bk, and quite frankly, I > object _very_ strongly to taking naming from something that is very > obviously the inferior system (SVN) over something very obviously superior > (BK and git). > We talked about this much at GitTogether '08. It's true that for 'reverting' a change in the past, that is the right thing to do. However I don't think there is a first principles case that this is always what people mean by 'revert'. And it is not just SVN - Mercurial, Monotone, Bazaar, Darcs all use 'revert' in this way. By comparison with those systems, the number of users coming from BK is quite low. We talked about making a 'git revert-file' and 'git revert-commit', with 'git revert' printing a message encouraging the user to specify which one they wanted (or potentially pointing them to the correct incantations of 'git checkout' or 'git cherry-pick'). I think as long as there is a deprecation cycle, and that users can select the old behaviour (either via an alias or a config option), then we shouldn't upset many long-time users of revert. Do you agree? Sam.