Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen <tfnico@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I tried asking the same question on the "newbie" list some time ago: > > http://groups.google.com/group/git-users/browse_thread/thread/d562b4eeac016711 > > Basically, when I go >> git revert <commit> <path> > > .. my expectation was that a new commit would be made reverting the > changes from the old commit, but only for specified path/file. > > Maybe it's a bit of a corner-case, but still would be nice to have > once in a while. What do you think? I am afraid that it would lead to encouraging people to record a horribly broken history, unless you think carefully about what the resulting commit log message should describe. It would look _as if_ you negated the effect of the original commit as a whole, but in reality you are only reverting just a part of what you chose to revert with <path>. We do encourage people to record the _reason_ why the particular commit was removed by not supporting "-m <message>" option to "git revert" command, but the commit template in the editor given to the user should make it absolutely clear that the particular partial revert is reverting only a part of the original commit, and need additional words to strongly encourage to record why only that part and not other parts are reverted. -- 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