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 9B1A9C0015E for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 06:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230423AbjHLGZT (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2023 02:25:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53408 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229499AbjHLGZS (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2023 02:25:18 -0400 Received: from bluemchen.kde.org (bluemchen.kde.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:8::100]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11CB2271E for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 23:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ugly.fritz.box (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bluemchen.kde.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EB7242A2; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 02:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ugly.fritz.box (masqmail 0.3.6-dev, from userid 1000) id 1qUi3k-owy-00; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:25:12 +0200 Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:25:12 +0200 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Cc: Linus Arver , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: 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> <07028529-cbe1-55d0-4ab0-9f3ec03a4fd1@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <07028529-cbe1-55d0-4ab0-9f3ec03a4fd1@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: >On 10/08/2023 23:00, Linus Arver wrote: >> Linus Arver writes: >> >>> 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 >> >> Hmph, "repeatedly reverting the same commit" sounds wrong because >> strictly speaking there is only 1 "same commit" (the original commit). > >While it isn't strictly accurate I think that wording is easy enough to >understand. > yes, but why would that be _better_ than saying "repeatedly reverting reversions" like i did? regards