On 2015-06-10 17.05, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes: > (Need to drop Eric from CC-list( >> git checkout <pathspec> can be used to revert changes in the working tree. > > I somehow thought that concensus in the recent thread was that > "restore", not "revert", is the more appropriate wording? > > And I think that is indeed sensible because "revert" (or "reset") > already means something else in Git (and in other systems), while > "restore" does not have a confusing connotation. It can only mean > "overwrite with a pristine copy", which is what the command is > about. > >> -git-checkout - Checkout a branch or paths to the working tree >> +git-checkout - Switch branches or reverts changes in the working tree > > Two verbs in different moods; either "switch branches or restore > changes" or "switches branches or restores changes" would fix that, > and judging from "git help" output, I think we want to go with the > former, i.e. "switch branches or restore changes". OK for me > >> >> SYNOPSIS >> -------- >> @@ -83,7 +83,8 @@ Omitting <branch> detaches HEAD at the tip of the current branch. >> When <paths> or `--patch` are given, 'git checkout' does *not* >> switch branches. It updates the named paths in the working tree >> from the index file or from a named <tree-ish> (most often a >> - commit). In this case, the `-b` and `--track` options are >> + commit). Changes in files are discarded and deleted files are >> + restored. > [] > How about this? > > 'git checkout' with <paths> or `--patch` is used to restore > modified or deleted paths to their original contents from > the index file or from a named <tree-ish> (most often a > commit) without switching branches. OK for me. -- 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