From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3221F545 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:32:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sasl header.b=dEztP4fZ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230473AbjG1Qby (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:31:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37610 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbjG1Qbx (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:31:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFCA3AB4 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DF81A716E; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:31:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=uKrt6Tn90729lJn/gheJLYFrZ2+//vH32/hAi9 L45Lw=; b=dEztP4fZxuPvPBOOmg8CCq+9Rzzaz7Ih8QMMp5B/Gr1j3zCWYmGzmh ChA5bvIp18/3F6K8JpbRczTZSLSwCS/Ti8lW1YXDds7PaCBoEoLka7cDzSBN/Dmz VJaZYhqj/i3yIZu/da1X/jZaJrdyLTrCyvOqWJnqiZXiO3wF3QHKc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF891A716D; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:31:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.168.215.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE2E11A716C; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:31:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: Linus Arver , Phillip Wood , git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: beautify subject of reverts of reverts References: <20230428083528.1699221-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> <3f5e4116-54e6-9753-f925-ed4a9f6e3518@gmail.com> <2d416834-ef3e-01a2-6be0-9e88bc0de25e@gmail.com> <10523968-0f02-f483-69c4-24e62e839f70@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:31:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Oswald Buddenhagen's message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:37:03 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 412EFA64-2D64-11EE-9892-307A8E0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Oswald Buddenhagen writes: > also, the "no more than two words" is sort of arbitrary - one can make > a pretty convincing argument for just one word as well. I doubt it. If you squash "revert revert revert" into "revert", it means "revert" no longer means "singly reverted", so you destroy the goal (3) completely. Using two at least lets you differentiate "ended up rejecting after reverted multiple times" and "reverted just once". > finally, just dropping that info would typically result in multiple > (non-trivial) commits with the same summary, which i don't really > like. leaving the uglier long variant (and the user hopefully > amending it) avoids it. Actually, I am fine with your > ... it falls into the "you > should get creative when that happens" category (which is codified in > the manual by my reworked patches). and leave this whole discussion behind it. If we were doing something, we should make sure what we are doing is reasonable, and moving away from evaluation criteria like "beautify" and "too nerdy" and steping back to see what we are trying to achieve was an attempt to refocus the discussion. From that point of view, allowing arbitrary number of "Reapply" repeated, optionally prefixed by a single "Revert", does not sound like it is much better compared to the current one---is it worth this much time to discuss, only to halve the length of long runs of "Revert"?