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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2023, 22:09 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqy1iemw75.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <ZNclyKWYw4j0C7wM@ugly>

Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 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"?