[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CVS commits and logs

From: Bill Wohler
Subject: Re: CVS commits and logs
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:15:06 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>   . CVS log entries should be simply the ChangeLog entries with the
>     file name and the leading TABs stripped.

I agree if only one file is committed. However, if multiple files are
committed, I'd say leave the file names and strip the leading TABs.

>   . Each file should be committed separately, even if the changes are
>     related, and the CVS log entry should be for the changes in that
>     file only.  In particular, the modified files and the ChangeLog
>     file with the appropriate log entry should be committed separately
>     (thus the CVS log entries for ChangeLog files should never include
>     log entries for the modified files).  Exception: it is okay to
>     commit several changes to a single ChangeLog file in one "cvs ci"
>     command if those changes are related to the same feature/bugfix.

This isn't clear. In the first sentence you say, "even if the changes
are related" but the exception says--paraphrased--"except if the
change are related". Which is it?

I hope the latter since if one file depends on the changes of another,
you had better check both files in at the same time. It's too bad
we're not using Subversion, but by checking the files in with the same
commit, we can reduce the chance of breaking an update that occurs
before the other files are checked in. Second, by enumerating all of
the file names in a single log message, you can see easily which files
are affected by a given change.

>   . The ChangeLog files should be committed with an empty log message
>     (unless this is a real change in the ChangeLog file itself, not an
>     addition of log entries).

I check in the ChangeLog at the same time as I check in the file whose
change it describes. It's easy and the ChangeLog check-in is less
prone to be forgotten. It seems this is a common practice. Is there a
good reason for your rule?

Speaking of Subversion, if we switched to it, this discussion would go
away since we wouldn't even need a ChangeLog ;-). The "svn log"
command provides everything you need to know, and you can say "svn log
> ChangeLog" when you're creating a tarball for release.

Bill Wohler <address@hidden>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

reply via email to

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