On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 03:09:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
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.
a more natural way for git users to say it would be "reverting reverts",
which i think everyone in the target audience would understand, but it
seems linguistically questionable to me. native speakers may want to
opine ...
An explicit mention of "commit", which
is a more familiar noun to folks than "reversion", does contribute to
it, I suspect.
yes, but "commit" may be misunderstood, as linus pointed out in his
reply to himself. phillip dismissed the concern, but i don't think
ambiguity is a good idea in the authoritative documentation.
unfortunately, linus' proposed alternatives seem even more like
"riddles" to me than what i am proposing.
regards
