Why is Git Revert Preferred Over Git Reset?

Introduction

Version control is a cornerstone of collaborative software development, and Git is one of the most widely used systems for this purpose. Among the various commands available in Git, git revert and git reset are often used to manage changes. However, git revert is often preferred over git reset, especially in collaborative environments. This article explores the key differences and advantages of using git revert over git reset.

Preservation of History

The fundamental difference between git revert and git reset lies in their approach to modifying commit history. git revert creates a new commit that undoes the changes made by a previous commit. This means the history of what happened is preserved, showing both the original commit and the revert commit.

In comparison, git reset moves the current branch pointer to a previous commit, effectively discarding all subsequent commits. This can lead to a loss of history, which can be problematic, especially in shared repositories.

Safety in Collaboration

git revert is safe for shared branches like main or develop. Since it adds a new commit rather than removing commits, it does not affect other collaborators' work.

git reset, however, can be dangerous in a shared context. If someone has already pulled the commits you reset, conflicts and confusion can arise as their local history will differ from the remote.

Selective Reversion

git revert offers more flexibility, allowing you to revert multiple commits individually or in batches. This provides more control over which changes to undo without affecting other unrelated commits.

git reset typically resets to a specific commit, which may include unwanted changes if not handled carefully.

Use Case Suitability

git revert is best used when you need to undo changes in a way that maintains a clear and traceable history, which is ideal in collaborative workflows.

git reset is more suitable for local development scenarios where you want to clean up your commit history before pushing to a remote repository.

Conclusion

In summary, git revert is generally preferred in collaborative workflows because it maintains history and avoids disrupting other team members. git reset can be useful for local cleanup but should be used with caution in shared contexts.

The git man page provides a clear distinction: git revert makes a new commit that reverts the changes made by other commits, whereas git reset is about updating your branch and moving the tip to add or remove commits from the branch. This operation changes the commit history. git revert advances your commit history, making it always safe to use in a collaborative environment. That said, it adds commits whose only purpose is to undo other commits, which some find adds noise, but I appreciate having a record of "ok, that code didn't work."

git reset, on the other hand, snips off parts of your commit history. If you make further commits and push them to a common repository, everyone else who pulled the repository before your reset will get an error on their next pull. It’s not unrecoverable, but it generally brings collaborative development to a screeching halt while everyone figures out how to work around unexpected branch pruning.