From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Bader Subject: Re: EasyGit Integration Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:09:55 +0900 Message-ID: References: <32541b130906091252i6c96c44buc148bb525d7cde14@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Scott Chacon , git list To: Avery Pennarun X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 10 03:10:13 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 1MECKS-0002ko-MF for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:10:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752941AbZFJBKD (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:10:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752830AbZFJBKD (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:10:03 -0400 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:63487 "EHLO tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751537AbZFJBKC (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:10:02 -0400 Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.46]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n5A19tZS012634; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:09:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.24] [10.29.19.24]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:09:55 +0900 Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.114.32] [10.114.114.32]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:09:55 +0900 Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 9C8E752E1D2; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:09:55 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <32541b130906091252i6c96c44buc148bb525d7cde14@mail.gmail.com> (Avery Pennarun's message of "Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:52:46 -0400") Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Avery Pennarun writes: > This would definitely make it easier to explain things to svn users. > 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. I think both definitions are quite reasonable. The sense in which git uses the word -- "make a change reversing an earlier change" -- is actually very common in programming. -Miles -- Would you like fries with that?