vitamin wrote:
[text on git-revert and git-show | patch -p1 -R removed]
They do both alter source code you are correct. However, that's the only thing my method does. What Austin suggests alters index.
What "git revert" does is it creates and commits a reverse patch on top of HEAD. This something for developers to deal with. And they know where to look and what to do.
Thank you for the explanation. However, will the user have to grab a
new git or can this simply be undone with the 'git-show | patch -p1'
sequence? This should be explained as well in a Wiki article.
For users it will create extra set of problems. As they can't do 'git pull' anymore - their "master" is no longer the same as "origin". And they explicitly have to remove that commit with "git reset --hard". And if you forget to do this and continue on the standard path 'git fetch; git rebase origin' you will end up with problems down the round. You still have that revert patch in your tree!
This would seriously break the git. I usually do a git and then branch
into another so that I can work with the problem as defined in issue
6254. This eliminates not being able to pull the next update. However,
this does lead to a serious use of hard drive space.
Lastly, thank you for the explanation of why git-revert is bad. This
should be added to the git page on the Wine Wiki IMHO.
James McKenzie
