"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
>
> When contributing the patch series, the cover letter tried to convey
> clearly that the patch introducing the shortcut -y was included only to
> show that it is possible, with a slight bias against it.
>
> During the review, there were a couple reviewers who agreed with this
> sentiment, and the author was happy that this patch was not needed and
> concurred that it should be dropped. See e.g. Stefan Beller's reply:
> <CAGZ79kZL5CRqCDRb6B-EedUm8Z_i4JuSF2=UtwwdRXMitrrOBw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> However, it slipped by the original patch author (yours truly) that the
> patch *was* included when the branch made it to `next` and then when it
> made it to `master`.
>
> So let's back out that patch before it even slips into an official
> release (in which case we would even have to support this unwanted
> flag).
>
> This reverts commit 81ef8ee75d5f348d3c71ff633d13d302124e1a5e.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> ---
Thanks for catching before feature freeze, but read the above again
with cooler head. The revert message is less useful than if you
said
The patch was sent for completeness just in case it turns out to
be too cumbersome not to have a short-hand option, but during
the discussion, reviewers agreed that [FOR SUCH AND SUCH REASONS
--- fill in the blank here] we are better off without. The
maintainer missed that conclusion and forgot to drop it while
merging the topic down, and contributors did not notice the
mistake, either.
As the reason is missing, the only thing a reader can get from it is
"the patch was not intended to be included, but we screwed up". I
do not see why a more useful "why it wasn't intended to be included"
needs to be hidden behind an external reference.
