Hi, On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote: > On Thursday 2006 December 14 00:22, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > * git-revert should be called git-invert. It doesn't remove a change > > > from history, it simply applies another commit that does the > > > opposite of whatever commit you are "revert"ing. That's an inversion. > > > > No. An inversion is the _opposite_. Not an undo. > > That's what I'm saying, we are applying the opposite of the given commit > - that commit is being inverted and applied again. Ahh! I get what you are thinking. I was talking about reverting a change from the _content's viewpoint_. I _never_ want to revert history (I am no politician, you know?) > > newbie cannot, and does not want to, understand exactly what is going > > on. > > "newbie" doesn't mean "idiot". Everybody wants to understand what is > going on. I heartly disagree. I saw so many faces _begging_ me to just say _what_ to do, not _why_, and quickly, please. > > So, think of it as our response to Windows' non-progress-bar: when you > > start up Windows, there is a progress-bar, except that it does not > > show progress, but a Knight Rider like movement, only indicating that > > it does something. > > Given the choice between nothing and a non-progress "doing something" > bar, I would of course pick the "doing something" bar. However, given > the choice between a "doing something" bar and a progress bar, I'd > rather have the progress bar. If I have the choice between a "doing something" bar and a Windows Explorer "14 seconds left" bar showing the same message for two minutes, I'd rather have a Mars bar ;-) Ciao, Dscho - 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