On 2015-06-12 06.49, Scott Schmit wrote:
> 'git checkout' with or `--patch` is used to restore modified or
> deleted paths to their original contents from the index or replace paths
> with the contents from a named (most often a commit-ish)
> instead of switching branches.
---
I w
Scott Schmit writes:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:05:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> How about this?
>>
>> 'git checkout' with or `--patch` is used to restore
>> modified or deleted paths to their original contents from
>> the index file or from a named (most oft
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:05:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Torsten Bögershausen writes:
>
> > git checkout can be used to revert changes in the working tree.
>
> I somehow thought that concensus in the recent thread was that
> "restore", not "revert", is the more appropriate wording?
>
Ed Avis writes:
> I guess 'replace' would be a better word than 'restore' for the current
> behaviour.
Hmm, but wouldn't replace have the same issue as overwrite, namely,
'replace with what?'.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...
I guess 'replace' would be a better word than 'restore' for the current
behaviour.
--
Ed Avis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Torsten Bögershausen writes:
> On 2015-06-10 17.05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> -git-checkout - Checkout a branch or paths to the working tree
>>> +git-checkout - Switch branches or reverts changes in the working tree
>>
>> Two verbs in different moods; either "switch branches or restore
>> chan
>
I agree, the word 'revert' is already taken for the operation of creating
a new commit which undoes some earlier commit. So 'revert' cannot be used
for the operation of overwriting a working tree file with its contents from
the repository.
But just because 'revert' is not a good choice, doesn't
On 2015-06-10 17.05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Torsten Bögershausen writes:
>
(Need to drop Eric from CC-list(
>> git checkout can be used to revert changes in the working tree.
>
> I somehow thought that concensus in the recent thread was that
> "restore", not "revert", is the more appropriate
Ed Avis writes:
> 'restore' may be more consistent with git's internal terminology.
> But from an outsider's perspective, 'revert' rather than 'restore' is in my
> view much clearer and more consistent with other version control systems:
> for example 'svn revert' is what you use to revert files
'restore' may be more consistent with git's internal terminology.
But from an outsider's perspective, 'revert' rather than 'restore' is in my
view much clearer and more consistent with other version control systems:
for example 'svn revert' is what you use to revert files in the working copy.
The
Torsten Bögershausen writes:
> git checkout can be used to revert changes in the working tree.
I somehow thought that concensus in the recent thread was that
"restore", not "revert", is the more appropriate wording?
And I think that is indeed sensible because "revert" (or "reset")
already mean
git checkout can be used to revert changes in the working tree.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen
---
My first attempt to improve the documentation
Documentation/git-checkout.txt | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-checkout.txt b/Documen
12 matches
Mail list logo
