[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

From: Dustin Sallings
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:06:32 -0700

On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 15:41 US/Pacific, Pau Aliagas wrote:

Well, we have "express commits": tla commit -L "your explanations".
Combining both like CVS is just unimportant because you could have an
alias in your shell to do it. Once you get used it's evenbetter to have it
this way because you can fill in the log as you do the changes. See, it
makes you work better.

Not that the model seems strange to me or anything, but I don't think that it's valid to generally assert that adding a new step to a process necessarily makes the process better.

I usually don't do any logging before a commit. It'd be nice to be able to do perforce/cvs style commits with notes, I think. Of course, if in the end, we only have one model, I like the one we have.

OpenCM does both in that you can edit your future checkin message at any time up to the checkin (at which point it will be presented to you for your final edit). I think the important aspect of the OpenCM model is that the user gets to choose the appropriate time to enter logs.

I think it's best to offer suggestions (as defaults) for how things should work, but still let users create their own work flow. For example, I really like the explicit tagging method and thing it's a good default, but some people like other methods.

SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]