A lot of it is easy UX wins left on the table. "git revert" would have been clearer if it were identical but just named "git retract". It's a more natural matc

A lot of it is easy UX wins left on the table. "git revert" would have been clearer if it were identical but just named "git retract". It's a more natural match because reverting usually just means going back to how things were, whereas retracting can and often does mean to announce that you are going back. After a newspaper prints something untrue or unfounded, they issue a retraction. "git checkout -b" is confusing because the main and most significant thing it does is create a new branch, and checking it out is secondary to that. If it had been "git branch -c" instead (create a branch also check it out) that would have been more natural than "git checkout -b" (check out a branch that, incidentally, you will have created). "git reset", as you mentioned, does two things. This could have been made easier by just splitting it into two commands. Perhaps the first two forms could be called "git unstage". The git book ( https://git-scm.com/book/id/v2/Git-Basics-Undoing-Things https://git-scm.com/book/id/v2/Git-Basics-Undoing-Things ) explains it under a heading called "Unstaging a Staged File", which suggests that it's a more natural term.