On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, at 15:23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > i thought about that already, and concluded that it's getting a bit "too > nerdy" and over-engineered. I see that point too. > the main motivation for me is to break the dogmatism with which some > people are approaching the matter - "$tool did it, so it is _the_ way". > set an example where the tool does something "humane", and you may > change some minds. Good thinking. Your patch does something “humane” without adding any involved logic. A good default for those who don’t want to change the provided revert message. (Why? I would hope that they at least write something in the body (after the subject) about why they are (reverting a revert)/reapplying.) -- Kristoffer Haugsbakk Frequent reverter
