Hi, On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Allowing people to revert or cherry pick partially by using paths > >> limiter is a very good idea; the whole "it comes from a commit so we > >> also commit" feels an utter nonsense, though. > > > > No. > > > > When "git revert <commit>" commits the result, "git revert <commit> -- > > <file>" should, too. > > I was not questioning about that part. "If 'git revert <some > other form> foo' does not talk about commit, it should not > commit" was what I was referring to. Well, I think that _if_ we allow "git revert <path>" to mean "revert the changes to <path>, relative to the index" (which would be the same as "git checkout <path>"), then committing that change just does not make sense. And it is this behaviour that people are seeking, not "git revert <commit> <path>". 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
