Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: explain why reverts are not always applied on merge

From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 13, 2020, 15:12 UTC
Message-ID: <CAN0heSrQR+6SsPHFtqcjYeFe1ce5USTxkxLXZ4g2MCqbV20K6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200912204824.2824106-3-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 22:51, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>
> A common scenario is for a user to apply a change to one branch and
> cherry-pick it into another, then later revert it in the first branch.
> This results in the change being present when the two branches are
> merge, which is confusing to many users.

s/merge/&d/

> +If this is a problem for you, you can do a rebase instead, rebasing the branch
> +with the revert onto the other branch.  A rebase in this scenario will revert
> +the change, because a rebase applies each individual commit, including the
> +revert.

Should this include the usual disclaimer about only rebasing a branch if it hasn't been published or if you (and your team) is willing and able to handle the fallout? I dunno. This piece of text is vague enough that the reader will have to pick up the "rebase ... onto" keywords and figure out the details some other way (and to be clear: I think that's a good thing). I think that should be sufficient and they'll find the disclaimer when they look up "rebase", if they don't already know it.

Martin