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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:24:39 +0300
> 
> On 09/21/2015 08:06 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > But what about CVS?  Its "rollback" command does remove the commit
> > upstream.
> 
> CVS has a "rollback" command?

Yes, it does.  From the description of "cvs admin":

  admin options
  -------------

  [...]

  `-oRANGE'
       Deletes ("outdates") the revisions given by RANGE.

(It then goes on to describe the syntax of RANGE, basically
REV1::REV2.)

> But if it does, sure, that's exactly what I mean.
> 
> > Going from RCS to Git needs some generalization, so if Git's rollback
> > will affect the remote, when it should, it's OK, I think.
> 
> It won't. That would be doubly dangerous.

So is "cvs -o".  The CVS manual says that much.  Why should Git be
different?  A careful user won't invoke this command unless they know
what they are doing, right?

> 'git revert', by itself, doesn't affect the remote either.

Indeed, so what is the reason not to use it as "rollback"?

> Like I said, for CVS/RCS/SVN commands (which unavoidably affect the 
> remote, because there's no "local" repository), the correspondent 
> commands in Git/Hg/Bzr will only act on the local repository.
> 
> We have `vc-push' for propagating those changes upstream.

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.