Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> It is better for a code to behave
> in a dumb but explainable way, than to attempting and failing to act
> too clever for its own worth.
I completely agree.
> Oswald, I do not think GIGO is really an excuse in this case, when
> the only value of the topic is to make the behaviour less awkward by
> creating something better than a repeated revert-revert sequence,
> revert-reapply-revert is worse, as it is markedly harder to guess
> what it really means for a reversion of revert-revert-revert than
> "revert" repeated four times.
How about introducing a suffix (+ or -) after the word "Revert" to
indicate the application/inclusion (+) or removal (-) of a commit? Example:
- "foo: bar baz quux"
- Revert "foo: bar baz quux"
- Revert(+) Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux"
- Revert(-) Revert(+) Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux"
- Revert(+) Revert(-) Revert(+) Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux"
I think the above increases readability. I chose to keep the same style
as the status quo for the first revert, because the "(-)" suffix alone
without a neighboring "(+)", as in
Revert(-) "foo: bar baz quux"
might confuse users. This style would also do away with the multiple
quoting levels that make the current multi-revert subject lines look
messy at the end. Example:
Revert "Revert "Revert "Revert some subject"""
^
This part is starting to
become noisy.
(Sorry for jumping into this thread so late, but the mention of this
topic on the recent "What's cooking" message [1] (that this topic would
be discarded) got me interested.)
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpm4d9g54.fsf@gitster.g/T/#mf4edccc7bbc6365a03eaf106121694a27559d275
