Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Scott Chacon wrote: > >> * breaks the various things that 'checkout' does into separate >> commands - moves 'revert' to doing what 'checkout -- path' does >> > > No. > > NAK on this one. > > The fact that some idiotic SVN usage exists is not an excuse to break > long-standing git users. "revert" comes from bk, and quite frankly, I > object _very_ strongly to taking naming from something that is very > obviously the inferior system (SVN) over something very obviously superior > (BK and git). > We talked about this much at GitTogether '08. It's true that for 'reverting' a change in the past, that is the right thing to do. However I don't think there is a first principles case that this is always what people mean by 'revert'. And it is not just SVN - Mercurial, Monotone, Bazaar, Darcs all use 'revert' in this way. By comparison with those systems, the number of users coming from BK is quite low. 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? Sam. -- 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