John Morrison wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > John Morrison wrote:
> > > All Patches applied, please verify - Thanks David.
> >
> > Thanks John, yes all is well. I see one minor issue though.
> > The CVS log message for the multiple commits just said
>
> It was multiple only because I missed a file ;)
>
> > "Some patches from ..." which will not be very useful down the
> > track. I know that it is a lot more effort, but necessary i think.
>
> Humm, I think we'll agree to differ there - how often have you
> ever looked back though cvs log comments? I never have...
I have needed to look occasionally, and that is when i have
struck trouble. Having to wade through the diffs is not nice.
Thank heaven for CVSview on the website.
> I use cvs comments to help me link recently posted patches with
> the work actually done, I'm afraid I don't usually rely on them
> being meaningful with regard to the actual code changes. Now,
> that might just because I'm working with a team of Windows
> developers who can only just use VSS but...
Yes, i do not rely on the log messages either. The intent of my
original comment here is that, when a project gets busy and the
cvs email is a deluge (like cocoon), i can investigate the
changes based on the summary log message.
--David
> > That is why i provided descriptions of what the patches were for.
>
> The descriptions were useful to decide whether I should patch or
> not. I prob should have used them in the cvs ci -m.
>
> > Thanks again (and i hope that i am not being too critical :-)
>
> Critical like this I don't mind at *all* :) *Please* continue
> to keep an eye on us (occasionally if nothing else).
>
> J.
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > John Morrison wrote:
> > > All Patches applied, please verify - Thanks David.
> >
> > Thanks John, yes all is well. I see one minor issue though.
> > The CVS log message for the multiple commits just said
>
> It was multiple only because I missed a file ;)
>
> > "Some patches from ..." which will not be very useful down the
> > track. I know that it is a lot more effort, but necessary i think.
>
> Humm, I think we'll agree to differ there - how often have you
> ever looked back though cvs log comments? I never have...
I have needed to look occasionally, and that is when i have
struck trouble. Having to wade through the diffs is not nice.
Thank heaven for CVSview on the website.
> I use cvs comments to help me link recently posted patches with
> the work actually done, I'm afraid I don't usually rely on them
> being meaningful with regard to the actual code changes. Now,
> that might just because I'm working with a team of Windows
> developers who can only just use VSS but...
Yes, i do not rely on the log messages either. The intent of my
original comment here is that, when a project gets busy and the
cvs email is a deluge (like cocoon), i can investigate the
changes based on the summary log message.
--David
> > That is why i provided descriptions of what the patches were for.
>
> The descriptions were useful to decide whether I should patch or
> not. I prob should have used them in the cvs ci -m.
>
> > Thanks again (and i hope that i am not being too critical :-)
>
> Critical like this I don't mind at *all* :) *Please* continue
> to keep an eye on us (occasionally if nothing else).
>
> J.