From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: EasyGit Integration Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <4A2F0B8A.9010203@vilain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Scott Chacon , git list To: Sam Vilain X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 10 03:59:51 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 1MED6U-0006Q7-T1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:59:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754878AbZFJB7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:59:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754489AbZFJB7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:59:41 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:60203 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753883AbZFJB7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:59:41 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id n5A1xfoU015033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:59:42 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id n5A1xeeV009170; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:59:41 -0700 X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain In-Reply-To: <4A2F0B8A.9010203@vilain.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.467 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-osdl_revision__1.47__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 140.211.169.13 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Sam Vilain wrote: > > 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? No. I disagree. What the hell is the point in making an _inferior_ name for what we already have? I violently disagree with making git worse just because somebody cannot bother to learn it. And it really is about "bother" - it's clearly not about anything else. I also don't see why you'd also then advocate a clearly inferior model with two different commands, when you _could_ just do the "commitname" vs "pathspec" model. Linus