Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 18:31:54 -0500 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 15:23:05 -0800 >> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Or would you prefer these not be reverted (and reapplied) at all -- just fixed >> > as you describe here? >> >> Yes, exactly that. >> > > Note, a revert usually means, "get rid of something because it's broken", it > shouldn't be used for "I'm implementing this differently, and need to > remove the old code first" > > For the latter case, just remove what you don't need for the reason why > it's being removed. Reverting commits is confusing, because when you see a > revert in a git log, you think that commit was broken and needed to be taken > out. Ack that. And, agree, it did feel pretty odd to revert so many good commits. I guess in that sense it makes sense to minimize the number of reverts. There are some that I suspect I will have to revert. Will detail specifically why they are being reverted. Thanks -- ankur
