[Gnu-arch-users] Editing History

[Michael Vrable]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 09:57:36PM -0500, John Meinel wrote:
> But I would *not* try to edit the old summary at all. That is very
> close to changing history, and doing that is considered **bad*** mojo
> in arch.  It's possible, I think everyone who has used arch has tried,
> (including myself :). But it *really* isn't worth the effort. As a
> side note, tla will let you commit an empty changeset. So you could
> always just commit again, only this time give the real summary, and a
> note that says this log is actually for the previous one.
> 
> It's a lot cleaner, and doesn't involve hacking into any other files. 
> This is especially true with signed archives. as you have to regen the 
> signature as well. It just gets messy.

What about editing the patchlog in the tree's {arch} directory and
committing a new revision with that change?  That would seem to me to
implement a version-controlled change to the change summaries.  (The
change wouldn't show up with "tla revisions" and "tla cat-archive-log",
but "tla logs" and "tla changelog" would show the corrected log entry.)

This seems to avoid many of the problems, though it does cause the two
methods for getting the log messages to differ.  Is this considered bad
practice as well?

--Michael Vrable