Re: [PATCH 1/1] replay: add --revert option to reverse commit changes
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 25, 2025, 19:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqjyzdrjf1.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqo6oprjti.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 35 quoted lines
>> Dedup with do_pick_commit() where this was taken from. Possibly in
>> a separte patch before the main one.
>
> Forgot to attach this at the end. What I meant was that something
> along this line may be a good starting point.
>
> sequencer.c | 14 +-------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git c/sequencer.c w/sequencer.c
> index e6d82c8368..29909952d4 100644
> --- c/sequencer.c
> +++ w/sequencer.c
> @@ -2365,20 +2365,8 @@ static int do_pick_commit(struct repository *r,
> if (opts->commit_use_reference) {
> strbuf_commented_addf(&ctx->message, comment_line_str,
> "*** SAY WHY WE ARE REVERTING ON THE TITLE LINE ***");
> - } else if (skip_prefix(msg.subject, "Revert \"", &orig_subject) &&
> - /*
> - * We don't touch pre-existing repeated reverts, because
> - * theoretically these can be nested arbitrarily deeply,
> - * thus requiring excessive complexity to deal with.
> - */
> - !starts_with(orig_subject, "Revert \"")) {
> - strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, "Reapply \"");
> - strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, orig_subject);
> - strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, "\n");
> } else {
> - strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, "Revert \"");
> - strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, msg.subject);
> - strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, "\"\n");
> + sequencer_format_revert_header(&ctx->message, msg.subject);
> }
> strbuf_addstr(&ctx->message, "\nThis reverts commit ");
> refer_to_commit(opts, &ctx->message, commit);By the way, I probably would not be queuing this version today, as this has obvious conflict with a large code movement made by Patrick's "history" series, which itself is expecting a reroll.
Perhaps collect review comments on this iteration a bit more and wait for that other topic to be rerolled, and if it turns out to be solid enough, base a v2 of this patch on top of it?
Thanks.