Subject: Re: Updating the commit message for reverts

From: Oswald Buddenhagen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:33:48 +0100

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:59:15AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>Gal Paikin wrote:
>> The suggestion is to change the behavior to "Revert^N" instead of
>> multiple Reverts one after another.
>
>This would be replacing one kind of jargon with another, so it's not
>clear to me that it would improve matters.
>
>With Revert / Reland, we can forget the N altogether: [...]
>
the irony here is that "reland" is of course yet more jargon. :-D
i'd strongly suggest to use something that actually appears in standard 
dictionaries, preferentially "reapply".

> 1. 'Do some great thing'
> 2. 'Revert "Do some great thing"'
> 3. 'Reland "Do some great thing"'
> 4. 'Revert "Do some great thing"'
> 5. (etc)
>
>For the reader of the shortlog, it's not too important how long the
>edit war has gone.  The single word makes it clear what the commit
>is going to do.
>
in principle i agree, but it irks me somewhat that the summaries become 
non-unique, as that always somewhat impacts history browsing.