I'm not sure where I used completeness in my argument prior? Updating a file and updating a directory to me are effectively the same thing. The fact that git c

I'm not sure where I used completeness in my argument prior? Updating a file and updating a directory to me are effectively the same thing. The fact that git checkout can accept either a filename/directoryname, or a revision strikes me as no worse/better than the alternative in hg. That is: git checkout file/directory git checkout revision Is no better/worse than: hg revert file/directory hg update -r revision (or wherever . is actually used, i'll admit I've never used it in mercurial) In fact in many ways the git methodology maps closer to how english verbs are overloaded as well. That is, we're checking out some file/directory named whatever back to its last known good value, or we're checking out everything to a specific revision (I'll omit every option possible for brevity). Its rather easily parsed and explained to humans. The mercurial versions to be honest seem more pedantic than intuitive. I have to use both and vastly prefer the git way in this regard. But to each his own. The link is cute but I couldn't get past the first few paragraphs. It is trying a bit too hard to be funny/cute for my tastes. That said I looked at the listings of things that are messed up and sure I don't argue that git has an "intuitive" interface by any means in regards to listing tags/revisions. But this one point I don't see as its most glaring of issues. If its that big of an issue just do what I do and create a git alias in .gitconfig to call the arcane incantation of magick. Then it doesn't really matter how inconsistent it is. Eh enough not working for me, tschuss!