Re: EasyGit Integration

[Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com>]

I too would like to see some of the improved UI aspects of EasyGit
merged into git.


On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Linus
Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.

I do not think "revert" to mean "checkout --" is just an SVN idiom.  I
have heard similar suggestions by people first learning git who have
never used SVN or CVS before.  To me, "revert" is a very natural name
for a command to undo changes in the working directory.  "Checkout,"
on the other hand, usually means to switch branches, which is
logically distinct from undoing changes in the working tree.  In fact,
if one tries to use "checkout" to switch a branch while there are
local changes, git will refuse!

At the same time, "revert" also is a fine name for making an inverse
commit, as revert currently does.  So perhaps overloading revert as
you suggest is a good idea.  It is wise, as you suggest, to keep
backwards compatibility for existing users.



Mark