Re: EasyGit Integration

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Elijah Newren wrote:
> 
> Do you object to using 'revert' in the name of the new command or just
> to having the new command take over the exact name 'revert'?

I object to changing existing meaning.

> I'd like to propose making the reverting of edits functionality 
> available under the command name 'revert-edits'

That's fine.

I also don't mind per se having the "git checkout" kind of semantics, 
where different kinds of arguments result in different kinds of behavior. 
I'm not convinced it's a wonderful design, but I would not object to

 - old behavior: revert the commit by creating an "anti-commit":

	git revert <cmit-name>

 - new extension: revert the state of the working tree to the HEAD:

	git revert [--] pathspec

which would kind of match the semantics of "git checkout" does.

So it's not that I object to "git revert" as a name. I just object to 
changing existing (and sane) semantics just for some silly person who 
thinks that git is just "SVN done right". 

Git is _soo_ much more than just that. People need to live with the fact 
that it's not just a SVN clone.

		Linus