From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A796C001DF for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237374AbjG1PhK (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:37:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58652 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235120AbjG1PhJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:37:09 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 21087 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at lindbergh.monkeyblade.net; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:37:06 PDT Received: from bluemchen.kde.org (bluemchen.kde.org [209.51.188.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AA6126A0 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ugly.fritz.box (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bluemchen.kde.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4831E24229; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ugly.fritz.box (masqmail 0.3.6-dev, from userid 1000) id 1qPPWZ-diF-00; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:37:03 +0200 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:37:03 +0200 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Linus Arver , Phillip Wood , git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts Message-ID: References: <20230428083528.1699221-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> <3f5e4116-54e6-9753-f925-ed4a9f6e3518@gmail.com> <2d416834-ef3e-01a2-6be0-9e88bc0de25e@gmail.com> <10523968-0f02-f483-69c4-24e62e839f70@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 08:10:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >And from the above discussion, I wonder if the following would be a >good place to stop: > > - The first revert is as before: Revert "original title" > - A revert of a revert becomes: Reapply "original title" > - A revert of a reapply becomes: Revert Reapply "original title" > - A revert of "Revert Reapply" becomes: Reapply Reapply "original title" > - A revert of "Reapply Reapply" becomes: Revert Reapply "original title" > >In other words, we accept the fact that we do not need exact number >of times reversions were done, and use that to simplify the output >to make sure we will not spend more than two words in the front of >the title. That would help to keep the original title visible, >while still allowing us to distinguish the ones that was reverted up >to four times (and "Revert Reapply" and "Reapply Reapply" only tell >us "final state is to (discard|accept) the original but it took us >_many_ times", without saying exactly how many). > i would not bother automating it, because it falls into the "you should get creative when that happens" category (which is codified in the manual by my reworked patches). also, the "no more than two words" is sort of arbitrary - one can make a pretty convincing argument for just one word as well. finally, just dropping that info would typically result in multiple (non-trivial) commits with the same summary, which i don't really like. leaving the uglier long variant (and the user hopefully amending it) avoids it. i think i'll steal some of the text i didn't quote for the commit message, though. ^^ regards