Re: EasyGit Integration
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:56
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Elijah Newren wrote:
Do you object to using 'revert' in the name of the new command or just to having the new command take over the exact name 'revert'?
I object to changing existing meaning.
I'd like to propose making the reverting of edits functionality available under the command name 'revert-edits'
That's fine. I also don't mind per se having the "git checkout" kind of semantics, where different kinds of arguments result in different kinds of behavior. I'm not convinced it's a wonderful design, but I would not object to - old behavior: revert the commit by creating an "anti-commit": git revert <cmit-name> - new extension: revert the state of the working tree to the HEAD: git revert [--] pathspec which would kind of match the semantics of "git checkout" does. So it's not that I object to "git revert" as a name. I just object to changing existing (and sane) semantics just for some silly person who thinks that git is just "SVN done right". Git is _soo_ much more than just that. People need to live with the fact that it's not just a SVN clone. Linus