Re: [PATCH] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts

From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
Date: Mar 28, 2023, 13:23 UTC
Message-ID: <ZCLqbmWsN/7Ihjg+@ugly>
In-Reply-To: <4f570b05-036d-45a1-8caa-cebfce3026c9@app.fastmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 08:04:43AM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, at 00:25, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> ""Revert^4 "A change" the other thread proposed start to look less horrible.
>> So, I dunno.
>
>That looks good. And the transformations are just:
>
>    Revert " → Reapply "
>    Reapply " → Revert^3 "
>    Revert^<n> " → Revert^<n+1> "
>

i thought about that already, and concluded that it's getting a bit "too nerdy" and over-engineered. the main motivation for me is to break the dogmatism with which some people are approaching the matter - "$tool did it, so it is _the_ way". set an example where the tool does something "humane", and you may change some minds. when it gets to round 3 of reverting, i expect people to get creative:

  Revert "foo" again
  Reapply "foo", take 2
  etc.

but i don't mind, as long as `Revert "Revert "Revert "foo"""` cannot be argued to be canon any more.