Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: >>On 10/08/2023 23:00, Linus Arver wrote: >>> Hmph, "repeatedly reverting the same commit" sounds wrong because >>> strictly speaking there is only 1 "same commit" (the original commit). >> >> While it isn't strictly accurate I think that wording is easy enough >> to understand. >> > yes, but why would that be _better_ than saying "repeatedly reverting > reversions" like i did? To me at least, "repeatedly reverting reversions" sounds more like a riddle, compared to "repeatedly reverting the same commit", whose intent sounds fairly obvious. An explicit mention of "commit", which is a more familiar noun to folks than "reversion", does contribute to it, I suspect. That would be how I explain why one is _better_ over the other, but of course these things are subjective, so I'd rather see us not asking such questions too often: which is more familiar, "commit" vs "reversion", especially to new folks who are starting to use "git" and reading the manual page for "git revert"?
