From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:10:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] doc: revert: add discussion
Message-ID: <07028529-cbe1-55d0-4ab0-9f3ec03a4fd1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <owly5y5mh81i.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com>

On 10/08/2023 23:00, Linus Arver wrote:
> Linus Arver <linusa@google.com> writes:
> 
>> How about
>> the following rewording?
>>
>>      While git creates a basic commit message automatically, it is
>>      _strongly_ recommended to explain why the original commit is being
>>      reverted. In addition, repeatedly reverting the same commit will
> 
> 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. I think it is hard to find a more accurate wording that 
isn't too verbose or cumbersome.

Best Wishes

Phillip


> Perhaps
> 
>      In addition, repeatedly reverting the same progression of reverts will
> 
> or even
> 
>      In addition, repeatedly reverting the same revert chain will
> 
> is better here?