Is this the expected revert behaviour ?

[Sébastien Pierre]

Le vendredi 05 mai 2006 à 10:33 -0700, Vadim Gelfer a écrit :
> 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.

I tend to think that Christian's version is clearer (as said in an
earlier message, but it seems like Mailman does not propagate the mails
today).

> > 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.

Well, I fear that this leads to reconsideration of the terminology for
revert/update.

While revert has a connotation of "backward in time", update has a
connotation of "forward in time" (but maybe it's a cultural thing) --
but both do the same operation, the only difference being the fact that
the parent is set or not.

Put differently, if I ask somebody "what would be the difference between
updating and reverting", should I expect "updating is a specific case of
reverting, where the parent revision is set" as an answer ?

 -- Sébastien