There is no general rule that a language construct such as a phrase or sentence must not contain redundancy.
In some of the world's languages we find, for instance, double negative constructs, which are mandatory. In English sentences, the subject and verb must agree in number, and so that is redundancy: for instance "you are" conveys plurality in two words, where one would suffice (and language can do without plurals entirely).
It may be your personal stylistic preference to avoid "revert back", but it's used by native speakers.
Some usages are more euphonic than others.
"Revert the software back to the previous version" doesn't sound bad.
"Return back home" is mildly awkward.
Note that in some uses of "give back", the "back" is semantically redundant, even though its presence is preferred over its absence. For instance, when we tell someone "give it back to me", the "back" appears even if nobody is listening other than the person we are speaking to (nobody is being informed that the situation is one of an item being returned rather than granted) and both parties already know the situation.
Also, note this common construction:
Give me back my [object]!
The "back" is clearly redundant because it's my object and you have it; "give me my [object]" by itself already means "return my object".
Perhaps because of patterns like this, English speakers are somewhat prepared to accept a redundant "back".
Also note this pattern:
Return my [object] to me!
Of course, if it's my object, returning is directed to me if nobody else is mentioned; there is redundancy: return my [object]!" already says everything. If the speaker wants his object returned to Bob rather than to herself, then Bob has to be explicitly mentioned: "Please return my pen to Bob."
I'm afraid that if you want to fight redundancy in language, you will face some lonely and difficult battles ahead, and ultimately redundancy will win the war.
You lie yourself and you lay something - the very basic thing.
For instance,
You lie down on the floor OVER
You lay a pot on the floor.
This is about the present tense.
I could not find anything better than simply putting GrammarGirl's excellent examples here, in-situ.
The past tense of lie is lay, so...
Last week, Steve lay down on the floor.
The cat lay in the mud after it rained yesterday.
The past tense of lay is laid, so
Last week, I laid the TPS report on your desk.
Mary forcefully laid her ring on the table.
The past participle of lie is lain (this is wonderful), so
Steve has lain on the floor for days.
The cat has lain in the mud for hours.
The past participle of lay is laid, so
I have laid the TPS report on your desk.
Mary has forcefully laid her ring on the table.
Best Answer
To lean {on|against} X means to rely on X to keep you upright - generally, while you are standing or sitting outside of a chair.
To lie back would apply if you are about 45 degrees or less in orientation, and generally means your back is going to be relying on something else for support. A doctor may ask you to lie back on an examination chair, which flattens out where you are then lying down.
Recline means to "lie back" in a sitting position, and can strongly suggest you are on a sofa or other seat with a back, that is not flat enough for you to be considered "lying" when on it.