On 2015-06-12 06.49, Scott Schmit wrote:
'git checkout' with paths 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 tree-ish (most often a commit-ish)
instead of switching branches.
Scott Schmit i.g...@comcast.net writes:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:05:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
How about this?
'git checkout' with paths or `--patch` is used to restore
modified or deleted paths to their original contents from
the index file or from a
I guess 'replace' would be a better word than 'restore' for the current
behaviour.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
--
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
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de 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
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:05:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
git checkout pathspec 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 e...@waniasset.com 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
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
git checkout pathspec 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)
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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
On 2015-06-10 17.05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
(Need to drop Eric from CC-list(
git checkout pathspec 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
'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
git checkout pathspec can be used to revert changes in the working tree.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de
---
My first attempt to improve the documentation
Documentation/git-checkout.txt | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
11 matches
Mail list logo
