On Sunday 2008 December 21 04:09:36 Robin Rosenberg wrote: > söndag 21 december 2008 04:11:13 skrev Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.: > > On Saturday 2008 December 20 20:37:16 Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > An alternative, would be "removing changes relative to .." > > > > (mainline). > > > > > > But that is exactly what "This reverts commit X" means, isn't it? > > > > When X is a merge commit, the phrase "the reverts commit X" is ambiguous. > > Did you revert the tree to X^, X^2, or X^8? I'd be fine with "This > > reverts commit X to X^y", but we definitely need some mention of X^y. > > 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. Then why not have "-m 1" be assumed instead of forcing the user to specify it? If we force the user to specify that information, shouldn't we hold the code to the same standard and have it output a message with that information? I think git should mention the parent to which we reverted whenever there are multiple parents. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
