Is this the expected revert behaviour ?

[Vadim Gelfer]

On 5/5/06, Sébastien Pierre <sebastien at xprima.com> wrote:

> When I read "revert modified files", I understand that only files marked
> as M in the 'status' output are reverted. While, as it seems like any
> file can be reverted to a particular version. So I don't get why there
> is this formulation of "modified files" instead of "the named files".

this is my not good english. i will remove word "modified". thank you.

> Moreover, I perceive the notion of "reversion" like something to "go
> back in the past", while it is possible to "revert to a newer version",
> which sounds weird.

is possible, yes, but i do not know how to make this clear.