Re: EasyGit Integration

Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Scott Chacon wrote:
  

quoted

* breaks the various things that 'checkout' does into separate
commands - moves 'revert' to doing what 'checkout -- path' does
    

No.

NAK on this one. 

The fact that some idiotic SVN usage exists is not an excuse to break 
long-standing git users. "revert" comes from bk, and quite frankly, I 
object _very_ strongly to taking naming from something that is very 
obviously the inferior system (SVN) over something very obviously superior 
(BK and git).
  

We talked about this much at GitTogether '08. It's true that for
'reverting' a change in the past, that is the right thing to do. However
I don't think there is a first principles case that this is always what
people mean by 'revert'. And it is not just SVN - Mercurial, Monotone,
Bazaar, Darcs all use 'revert' in this way. By comparison with those
systems, the number of users coming from BK is quite low.

We talked about making a 'git revert-file' and 'git revert-commit', with
'git revert' printing a message encouraging the user to specify which
one they wanted (or potentially pointing them to the correct
incantations of 'git checkout' or 'git cherry-pick').

I think as long as there is a deprecation cycle, and that users can
select the old behaviour (either via an alias or a config option), then
we shouldn't upset many long-time users of revert. Do you agree?

Sam.