Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] doc: revert: add discussion

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 15:09:02 -0700

Oswald Buddenhagen <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
>>On 10/08/2023 23:00, Linus Arver wrote:
>>> Hmph, "repeatedly reverting the same commit" sounds wrong because
>>> strictly speaking there is only 1 "same commit" (the original commit).
>>
>> While it isn't strictly accurate I think that wording is easy enough
>> to understand.
>>
> yes, but why would that be _better_ than saying "repeatedly reverting
> reversions" like i did?

To me at least, "repeatedly reverting reversions" sounds more like a
riddle, compared to "repeatedly reverting the same commit", whose
intent sounds fairly obvious.  An explicit mention of "commit", which
is a more familiar noun to folks than "reversion", does contribute to
it, I suspect.

That would be how I explain why one is _better_ over the other, but
of course these things are subjective, so I'd rather see us not
asking such questions too often: which is more familiar, "commit" vs
"reversion", especially to new folks who are starting to use "git"
and reading the manual page for "git revert"?