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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html