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

[Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 03:09:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
a more natural way for git users to say it would be "reverting reverts", 
which i think everyone in the target audience would understand, but it 
seems linguistically questionable to me. native speakers may want to 
opine ...

>An explicit mention of "commit", which
>is a more familiar noun to folks than "reversion", does contribute to
>it, I suspect.
>
yes, but "commit" may be misunderstood, as linus pointed out in his 
reply to himself. phillip dismissed the concern, but i don't think 
ambiguity is a good idea in the authoritative documentation.

unfortunately, linus' proposed alternatives seem even more like 
"riddles" to me than what i am proposing.

regards