[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag? |
Date: |
19 Sep 2003 13:30:26 +0900 |
Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> Two of them take a -L, --log-message option. tag doesn't. It
> should, shouldn't it?
I suppose, though it seems less likely that people will use it than
with the others, as the automatic message is usually good enough.
On a related note, I'd like to add a `-s, --summary SUM_TEXT' option to
the import command, like I did for commit (the doubled-text effect of -L
drives me nuts), but import already has a -s option, and I'm not sure
the best thing to do -- change the meaning of `import -s'? Use another
short option (-S?), but then that's inconsistent with `commit -s' (and
the reason I like -s is because many other commands use `-s' as a short
option for --summary). Gah...
Opinions?
-Miles
--
Run away! Run away!
- [Gnu-arch-users] -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?,
Miles Bader <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19