[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: cvs <-> arch mirroring scripts

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: cvs <-> arch mirroring scripts
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:43:19 -0400

    > How is that useful to CVS users like me?

    Because (1) it identifies which arch revision the change came from, which
    allows you to go back to the arch changeset to get more info if you need it,
    (2) it helps identify the change as part of a changeset along with other
    files, which is a generally useful concept even if not supported by the
    mechanics of CVS.

That's not particularly useful for me.

    You may not immediately need this info in your everyday log browsing, but
    that doesnt mean it's not useful.  However, it does suggest that maybe the
    idea of adding output-filtering to vc.el's C-v l command is good.  That way
    you can strip out this stuff that may interfere with casual browsing, but
    it's available in case you ever _do_ want it.

Ok, let's try to do it that way.

    > 1. We should think of this person as the one who checked in the
    > change.  If so, the info is useful but the CVS checkin user info is
    > useless.  This name should go in the CVS checkin user name, not in a
    > separate "Creator" field.

    This is true.  I think modifying the `cvs' client to do such a
    substitution would be a pain, but maybe this is another thing that vc.el
    could easily do.


    [Also note that this field could be used in other non-arch-related cases,
    when for some reason one person checks in a change for another]

That would be inconsistent.  If in arch changes the person in the
Creator field is considered the one who checked in the change, then we
should not use the Creator field to indicate the real author in other

Currently what we do is put the real author in ChangeLog, not in the
CVS log entry.  That seems to work well and I see no reason to change it.

reply via email to

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