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 6D5E8C0015E for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 05:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231910AbjG1F0G (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 01:26:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60016 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229946AbjG1F0E (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 01:26:04 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x649.google.com (mail-pl1-x649.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::649]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 762C530FC for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 22:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x649.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1bba7a32a40so13012355ad.0 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 22:26:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20221208; t=1690521963; x=1691126763; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VinsfpB2B4vj9pZIzyfHpBkz6a0LfX9Z4m0gpEKItM4=; b=RDGsj2j8PRYqEF715zWY/j1nps1NQYzaoqsjjjZOWgoDmvDVM0fXA7H9/+EGg32FNZ xO27R+8TqSeopsq2grk/+u5wnn4teuPcfz+NipnnIt+EsQOlxINFBWcqvZt7j+Iso0ud D3Qxp/IwgjIRO9kWbEukUGHbD7bh9hr6J3SSO6eL+RrYoExkWwGtAai6IwdknKjkuA0h Xy9R8AZ6v3qGGnqzy7p833B+fvJYFjHOa3BHRuHPtEA/4DHvZ9VZ9EZwrBdZ/yT0g2Cl s+KaNyz5D116pF/idrmV7nJbr2T42cdAp9e0T5Yc4TR0nrE4WRKtO4PyTpYA9AAvtz3o gRdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1690521963; x=1691126763; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VinsfpB2B4vj9pZIzyfHpBkz6a0LfX9Z4m0gpEKItM4=; b=iOIiYImD64p1Ieep976oWqBNl3f06LpZB2MzLDDs3SgaVV0vUwW4mDS5RjSIYR3IAY ejmkSl3G8wjavVjwnAvOzad3am/Q980wyhU+rmnhvl6IzP9ukv6ptOseazZBetCLTfsX Nbk/R9b6cJLQkuvV9T5xJK3CQTDLavtfTR9bcMoFpKN2Xqcb/Eh6ZN48dintz4o0GW22 HwG6ChfK1iXYyKtT+yw01xjtq8J5krj8BqH9nrfNS73cEFyflDyk/3TkSB2rOsJ7XJlG TTll4yGUCg3PRhJNe3yDZP3pXf2CUNzuPKd0VgjjgNu97Joy76FdbXH0oT8k2kmGs9jD 23aQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZcoEqtOaM63O9zW/4iwuJwf9avC2SgXOWs0kx2KsDqiFSse+we KaUEDG0DTi9oIimp00xp+uQjhymXnfg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlH4Mhy/VM23A6/FP2/BQKTxDKpMbB0zFE0iPqM+xv0HeGjo6UKhgi/cEEjuQxz7rV2cFfu/jPGQg8Q= X-Received: from fine.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:2221]) (user=linusa job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:902:ce90:b0:1a6:4ce8:3ed5 with SMTP id f16-20020a170902ce9000b001a64ce83ed5mr3089plg.4.1690521962953; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 22:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 22:26:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 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> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts From: Linus Arver To: Junio C Hamano , Phillip Wood , Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > It is better for a code to behave > in a dumb but explainable way, than to attempting and failing to act > too clever for its own worth. I completely agree. > Oswald, I do not think GIGO is really an excuse in this case, when > the only value of the topic is to make the behaviour less awkward by > creating something better than a repeated revert-revert sequence, > revert-reapply-revert is worse, as it is markedly harder to guess > what it really means for a reversion of revert-revert-revert than > "revert" repeated four times. How about introducing a suffix (+ or -) after the word "Revert" to indicate the application/inclusion (+) or removal (-) of a commit? Example: - "foo: bar baz quux" - Revert "foo: bar baz quux" - Revert(+) Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux" - Revert(-) Revert(+) Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux" - Revert(+) Revert(-) Revert(+) Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux" I think the above increases readability. I chose to keep the same style as the status quo for the first revert, because the "(-)" suffix alone without a neighboring "(+)", as in Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux" might confuse users. This style would also do away with the multiple quoting levels that make the current multi-revert subject lines look messy at the end. Example: Revert "Revert "Revert "Revert some subject""" ^ This part is starting to become noisy. (Sorry for jumping into this thread so late, but the mention of this topic on the recent "What's cooking" message [1] (that this topic would be discarded) got me interested.) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpm4d9g54.fsf@gitster.g/T/#mf4edccc7bbc6365a03eaf106121694a27559d275