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 73BB5EB64DD for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 22:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231185AbjHMWJf (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:09:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58400 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231616AbjHMWJH (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:09:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7753710C4 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 15:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F7E1B7D11; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:09:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=4yE1MvFcNMO51Ow5WlI/5x8V523nzSIUoIp3hV KliqE=; b=MroB1GvAeSvk+B02/sguJsQHuvgIpj5XSp1kvGR0+xTbX0pL2158sy Edn9kZ3ZH8Ree3jwbHWMAHE5crZkbmivtFoSGEkwR9/VHdJHWBiHANcoHKT9UK6F gz4BCqmCwNx6j3JseQrDL2F7kHrpvkqg6mi9JzaSjrES20cIlfsCA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AA31B7D10; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:09:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.58.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B85CB1B7D0E; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:09:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Linus Arver , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] doc: revert: add discussion 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> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 15:09:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Oswald Buddenhagen's message of "Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:25:12 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 038C206E-3A26-11EE-B7DD-C65BE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Oswald Buddenhagen writes: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: >>On 10/08/2023 23:00, Linus Arver wrote: >>> 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? To me at least, "repeatedly reverting reversions" sounds more like a riddle, compared to "repeatedly reverting the same commit", whose intent sounds fairly obvious. An explicit mention of "commit", which is a more familiar noun to folks than "reversion", does contribute to it, I suspect. That would be how I explain why one is _better_ over the other, but of course these things are subjective, so I'd rather see us not asking such questions too often: which is more familiar, "commit" vs "reversion", especially to new folks who are starting to use "git" and reading the manual page for "git revert"?