Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
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>".
Heh, I found this in the recent log somewhere.
<gitte> Really, I wonder how difficult git is for people who are not
brainwashed by cvs/svn, and unfortunately enough, partly by bzr and hg.
<gitte> From a user perspective, you might be correct. But then we have to
add 1000 commands to reflect the English language.
<gitte> Not what I want. [06:46]
I am wondering who said it ;-).
But anyway, I am inclined to agree that accepting "$scm revert
paths.." as a synonym for "git checkout -- paths..."
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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>".
Heh, I found this in the recent log somewhere.
<gitte> Really, I wonder how difficult git is for people who are not
brainwashed by cvs/svn, and unfortunately enough, partly by bzr and hg.
<gitte> From a user perspective, you might be correct. But then we have to
add 1000 commands to reflect the English language.
<gitte> Not what I want. [06:46]
I am wondering who said it ;-).
Now, that is not fair, using my own words against me ;-)
Ciao,
Dscho
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:27:54PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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>".
Heh, I found this in the recent log somewhere.
<gitte> Really, I wonder how difficult git is for people who are not
brainwashed by cvs/svn, and unfortunately enough, partly by bzr and hg.
<gitte> From a user perspective, you might be correct. But then we have to
add 1000 commands to reflect the English language.
<gitte> Not what I want. [06:46]
I am wondering who said it ;-).
Now, that is not fair, using my own words against me ;-)
That's very funny actually :]
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org