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 2B8C0EB64DD for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 18:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234847AbjHKSRH (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:17:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40278 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237064AbjHKSRB (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:17:01 -0400 Received: from bluemchen.kde.org (bluemchen.kde.org [209.51.188.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A5E30DC for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ugly.fritz.box (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bluemchen.kde.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AB02420E; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ugly.fritz.box (masqmail 0.3.6-dev, from userid 1000) id 1qUWh0-gLw-00; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:16:58 +0200 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:16:58 +0200 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Linus Arver , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH v3 2/2] doc: revert: add discussion Message-ID: References: <20230428083528.1699221-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> <20230809171531.2564807-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> <20230809171531.2564807-2-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> 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, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:44:50AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Linus Arver writes: >> >>> Oswald Buddenhagen writes: >>> >>>> while thinking about what to write, i came up with an idea for another >>>> improvement: with (implicit) --edit, the template message would end up >>>> being: >>>> >>>> This reverts commit , >>>> because . >>> >>> This sounds great to me. >> >> Oh, absolutely. I rarely do a revert myself (other than reverting a >> premature merge out of 'next'), but giving a better instruction in >> the commit log editor buffer as template is a very good idea. > >It might be just the matter of doing something like the attached >patch on top of Oswald's, reusing the existing code to instruct the >user to describe the reversion. > hmm, this seems to be going down a too narrow road - my idea was to make this fully orthogonal to reverting reverts in particular (note that i attached it to the generic "discussion" patch rather than the "reverts of reverts" one). i didn't think about the integration with existing options yet. regards