On 17/05/2023 11:00, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:05:51AM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 28/04/2023 09:35, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
+ } else if (skip_prefix(msg.subject, "Revert \"",
&orig_subject)) {
+ if (skip_prefix(orig_subject, "Revert \"",
&orig_subject)) {
I think it is probably worth adding
if (starts_with(orig_subject, "Revert \""))
strbuf_addstr(&msgbuf, "Revert \"");
else
here to make sure that we don't end up with a subject starting "Revert
\"Reapply \"Revert ...".
i can't follow you.
how is the concern not covered by the subsequent comment?
That comment says that reverting a commit with a subject line
Revert "Revert some subject"
will result in the new commit having a subject
Revert "Reapply some subject"
I'm saying that reverting a commit with a subject line
Revert "Revert "Revert some subject""
should result in the new commit having the subject
Revert "Revert "Revert "Revert some subject"""
(i.e. at that point we stop trying to be clever) rather than
Revert "Reapply "Revert some subject""
which I think is what this patch produces.
Best Wishes
Phillip
+ /*
+ * This prevents the generation of somewhat
unintuitive (even if
+ * not incorrect) 'Reapply "Revert "' titles from
legacy double
+ * reverts. Fixing up deeper recursions is left to
the user.
+ */
regards,
ossi
