|
From: | Dustin Sallings |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch |
Date: | Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:36:26 -0700 |
On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 03:43 US/Pacific, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
What I'm working toward (slowly) is a model in which "arch commits" are almost as lightweight as a file save. The additional effort involves a single keystroke selection from a small number of keywords (I have typofix, bugfix, comment, ontask in mind). Then as the changes build up, arch starts to nag you to organize your commits.
I agree, this is a good model to use when branches are as easy as they are.
I'm really not bothered enough by the checkin model to have participated in this thread as long as I have. I'm only questioning whether it enforces a particular type of user's preference on a user who does not have the same preference by erroring on a commit with no predefined log rather than prompting the user for a log message ala RCS/CVS/perforce/OpenCM/etc...
Dustin> OpenCM does both in that you can edit your future Dustin> checkin message at any time up to the checkin (at which Dustin> point it will be presented to you for your final edit). Arch does, too.
Well, this isn't an arch issue, it's a tla issue (not sure if that's what you meant here). The difference I'm talking about is that OpenCM prompts you for a final edit at commit time, whether you've begun a log message or not. I can see three modes that would be an excellent point for a user preference here:
On commit: Always prompt for edit of log message Prompt for edit of log message if no log present Never prompt for edit of log message (current behavior) -- Dustin Sallings
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |