I sometimes have difficulty explaining to people the behavior of 'update' after a 'revert'. I'm looking for advice which I don't think I'm finding in help or the user guide. Consider a standalone branch with a working tree. The branch is at revision 4 and the tree is up to date at revision 4. Now we revert the working tree to revision 2. Now if we 'update' we are told that the tree is up to date at revision 4. **This is the bit that some people have trouble understanding.** What they really need to do is revert to the head of the branch. But they wonder why update did not -- as the docs say -- "Update a tree to have the latest code committed to its branch" So what's a good story to teach to people to think correctly about this? ~M