Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>,
>     monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
>     emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:26:12 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > Yes, it does.  From the description of "cvs admin":
> 
> But IIRC cvs admin requires shell access to the repository host: you
> can't use it from a client machine.

I think you are wrong (I think I used it once or twice on a client),
but my CVS is rusty.

>  > > 'git revert', by itself, doesn't affect the remote either.
>  > 
>  > Indeed, so what is the reason not to use it as "rollback"?
> 
> In git, "revert" has the wrong semantics; it adds a commit rather than
> removing one.  This would surely confuse anybody who knows a little
> bit about databases.

But that's the only sane thing to do when a commit was pushed.

>  > I agree.  But the original issue was whether a "rollback" should
>  > invoke "git reset --hard", "git revert", or sometimes one and
>  > sometimes the other.  The issue never was about adding a "push" to
>  > that.
> 
> The problem is that users don't push commits.  They push branches.
> That resets the ref on the remote end, which will confuse all derived
> branches that include the rolled-back commit, even if you don't get
> the usual rebase lossage.

Since 'revert' just adds another commit, I don't see why they will be
confused.