On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:29:42AM +0000, Mike Hommey wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debia=
n.org> wrote:
quoted text
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:54:02AM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> > >=20
> > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Allowing people to revert or cherry pick partially by using paths=
=20
quoted text
> > > >> limiter is a very good idea; the whole "it comes from a commit so =
we=20
quoted text
> > > >> also commit" feels an utter nonsense, though.
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > When "git revert <commit>" commits the result, "git revert <commit>=
 --=20
quoted text
> > > > <file>" should, too.
> > >=20
> > > I was not questioning about that part.  "If 'git revert <some
> > > other form> foo' does not talk about commit, it should not
> > > commit" was what I was referring to.
> >=20
> >   Well, I don't really know how closely you read #git, but I'd say that
> > "how do I undo my local changes in a git repository" is among the top 3
> > questions. There _IS_ an UI issue for that.
> >=20
> > If git revert <commitish> -- path1 path2 path3 is going to work at some
> > point, I see no harm in saying that git revert HEAD -- path1 path2 path3
> > work. We can also in that case spit an error message:
>=20
> It seems to me git revert HEAD -- path1 path2 path3 should revert the cha=
nges
quoted text
> made in the commit pointed to by HEAD, not revert the changes in the work=
ing
quoted text
> tree or the index...

  Yes, sorry, the `HEAD` in my sentence was spurious.

--=20
=C2=B7O=C2=B7  Pierre Habouzit
=C2=B7=C2=B7O                                                madcoder@debia=
n.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org