From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
To: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] doc: revert: add discussion
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:49:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZNYuUh27ByphTH04@ugly> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <owly5y5mh81i.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com> <owly8raih8ho.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com>
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:50:59PM -0700, Linus Arver wrote:
>Nit: the "doc: revert: add discussion" subject line should probably be more
>like "revert doc: suggest adding the 'why' behind reverts".
>
this is counter to the prevalent "big endian" prefix style, and is in
this case really easy to misread.
i also intentionally kept the subject generic, because the content
covers two matters (the reasoning and the subjects, which is also the
reason why this is a separate patch to start with).
>Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes:
>> +DISCUSSION
>> +----------
>> +
>> +While git creates a basic commit message automatically, you really
>> +should not leave it at that. In particular, it is _strongly_
>> +recommended to explain why the original commit is being reverted.
>> +Repeatedly reverting reversions yields increasingly unwieldy
>> +commit subjects; latest when you arrive at 'Reapply "Reapply
>> +"<original subject>""' you should get creative.
>
>The word "latest" here sounds odd. Ditto for "get creative".
>
yeah, i suppose. i wasn't sure how formal i should make it - things
aren't consistent to start with.
> How about the following rewording?
>
> While git creates a basic commit message automatically, it is
> _strongly_ recommended to explain why the original commit is being
> reverted. In addition, repeatedly reverting the same commit will
> result in increasingly unwieldy subject lines,
>for example 'Reapply "Reapply "<original subject>""'.
>
you turned it from a suggested threshold into an example. at this point
it appears superfluous to me.
>Please consider rewording such
> subject lines to reflect the reason why the original commit is being
> reapplied again.
>
the reasoning most likely wouldn't fit into the subject.
also, the original request to explain the reasoning applies
transitively, so i don't think it's really necessary to point it out
explicitly.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 03:00:41PM -0700, Linus Arver wrote:
>Hmph, "repeatedly reverting the same commit" sounds wrong because
>strictly speaking there is only 1 "same commit" (the original commit).
>Perhaps
>
> In addition, repeatedly reverting the same progression of reverts will
>
>or even
>
> In addition, repeatedly reverting the same revert chain will
>
>is better here?
>
we used "recursive reverts" elsewhere. but i'm not sure whether that's
sufficiently intuitive and formally correct.
anyway, what's wrong with my original proposal?
so in summary, how about:
While git creates a basic commit message automatically, it is
_strongly_ recommended to explain why the original commit is being
reverted. In addition, repeatedly reverting reversions will
result in increasingly unwieldy subject lines. Please consider
rewording these into something shorter and more unique.
regards
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-11 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-28 8:35 [PATCH v2] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-04-28 18:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-04-28 19:11 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-05-01 16:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-01 19:10 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-05-01 19:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-05 17:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-17 9:05 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-17 10:00 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-05-17 11:20 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-17 17:02 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-05-18 9:58 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-18 16:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-28 5:26 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-28 9:45 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-07-28 15:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-28 15:37 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-07-28 16:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-28 16:47 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-07-28 17:36 ` Linus Arver
2023-08-09 17:15 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-09 17:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] doc: revert: add discussion Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-10 21:50 ` Linus Arver
2023-08-10 22:00 ` Linus Arver
2023-08-11 15:10 ` Phillip Wood
2023-08-12 6:25 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-13 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-14 14:13 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-11 12:49 ` Oswald Buddenhagen [this message]
2023-08-11 23:00 ` Linus Arver
2023-08-12 7:19 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-09-07 21:29 ` Linus Arver
2023-08-11 15:08 ` Phillip Wood
2023-08-11 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-11 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-11 17:44 ` Re* " Junio C Hamano
2023-08-11 17:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-11 17:56 ` rsbecker
2023-08-11 18:16 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-08-11 18:16 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-11 19:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-11 15:05 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts Phillip Wood
2023-08-11 16:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-11 17:13 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-21 17:07 ` [PATCH v4 " Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-21 17:07 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] git-revert.txt: add discussion Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-21 18:32 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts Junio C Hamano
2023-08-23 20:08 ` Taylor Blau
2023-08-23 21:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-08-24 6:14 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-09-02 7:20 ` [PATCH v5] " Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-09-02 22:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-09-11 20:12 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZNYuUh27ByphTH04@ugly \
--to=oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=linusa@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).