On Sunday 2008 December 21 14:23:17 Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Then why not have "-m 1" be assumed instead of forcing the user to > > specify it? > > The reason we don't is because until very recently we did not even allow > you to revert a merge relative to any parent. We wanted to avoid > surprising people who are _relying on_ that behaviour to make sure that > they do not revert a merge by accident. That makes sense. > We could certainly do what you suggest to imply "-m 1" when the commit > requested to be reverted happens to be a merge, but we shouldn't be doing > that without thinking things through. It will break people's longstanding > expectations. I wasn't really suggesting that. I was pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency: making the user specify the parent but not making the commit message specify the parent. I still think the parent we are reverting to should be mentioned in the automatically generated commit message, even if it is the first parent. Even if it is decided to elide that information for the first parent, I agree that, at least for now, the "-m" should still be required when reverting a merge commit. -- 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.
