Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > One could consider keeping the contributions from ^1 a special case and not > mention the parent, making it look like any revert commit. I guess most merge > reverts are like this in practice. I think that makes sense. There are cases where the mainline maintainer punts a merge and pass the baton to a subsystem maintainer, saying "Your tree has many conflicts with my tip, and I'd rather ask you to resolve it" (and after such a merge, the mainline maintainer will fast forward to the result), in which case the merge will be in the reverse direction, but that should be rare. Reverting such a merge later from the mainline's point of view would involve "revert -m 2". So if your patch is tightened a bit to record extra information only in such a case, I think that would be an acceptable approach to the issue. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
