Gal Paikin <paiking@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So the idea of changing from "Revert Revert" to "Reland", "reapply" > has a big problem: sometimes Revert^2 actually means 'reverting > "Revert"' since "Revert" introduced a bug that wasn't in the original > change. Sorry, I do not see a relevance of the above in this discussion, as the situation does not improve if you phrase it as "Revert^2" or "Second Revert". Also as somebody else said in downthread, the phrasing "second revert" would typically mean "a patch gets applied, proves to be premature and gets reverted, the revert is reverted because the situation in the rest of the system improved to make the orignal patch viable, and then gets reverted again due to some other issues", i.e. "Revert Revert Revert do something", so it is even worse.
