On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 09:31:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
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"?
yes, for two reasons:
- the single "reapply" case is actually common; it's usually done after
a previously missed pre-requisite was applied.
- the fact that it's "beautified" _at all_ sends a signal (see previous
mails). it doesn't have to be particularly sophisticated for that.
regards
