Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> writes: > also, the "no more than two words" is sort of arbitrary - one can make > a pretty convincing argument for just one word as well. I doubt it. If you squash "revert revert revert" into "revert", it means "revert" no longer means "singly reverted", so you destroy the goal (3) completely. Using two at least lets you differentiate "ended up rejecting after reverted multiple times" and "reverted just once". > finally, just dropping that info would typically result in multiple > (non-trivial) commits with the same summary, which i don't really > like. leaving the uglier long variant (and the user hopefully > amending it) avoids it. Actually, I am fine with your > ... it falls into the "you > should get creative when that happens" category (which is codified in > the manual by my reworked patches). and leave this whole discussion behind it. If we were doing something, we should make sure what we are doing is reasonable, and moving away from evaluation criteria like "beautify" and "too nerdy" and steping back to see what we are trying to achieve was an attempt to refocus the discussion. From that point of view, allowing arbitrary number of "Reapply" repeated, optionally prefixed by a single "Revert", does not sound like it is much better compared to the current one---is it worth this much time to discuss, only to halve the length of long runs of "Revert"?
