On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:36:29PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:06:55AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Reverts shouldn't be special - they're just regular patches and should have sensible changelogs like any others.
Stating that you're reverting a commit and which commit that is is in the summary is arguable sensible (of course, you still also need further details in the commit message body itself describing why it was needed).
Check the logs and you'll see that we have a ton of "Revert <reverted commit summary>" for various subsystems. In fact, it seems to be by far the most common summary for direct reverts.
The easily findable ones are, and it doesn't mean it's good practice - reverts seem to attract particularly bad commit messages in general, not just the subject lines, and I happen to have a pre-canned response for this so...