On 10/9/11 9:47 PM, Glen Barber wrote: > On 10/9/11 8:37 PM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: >> On 2011.10.09. 19:32, Glen Barber wrote: >>> Consistent pre-populated commit messages: Another reason conversion to >>> SVN would be a "Good Thing(Tm).":-) >> What's wrong with the current template? What does SVN do better? No >> criticism, just curiosity because I haven't noticed any difference. >> > > SVN consistently populates the commit message with certain fields; > Reviewed by, Submitted by, etc. > > I've personally seen CVS commits lack these fields, which seems to > depend on where within the tree the commit is being done. It hasn't yet > annoyed me enough to ask someone why. It is annoying though. >
... and yes, I am aware the former example is a byproduct of using the subversion-freebsd port in place of the "normal" subversion port. -- Glen Barber | [email protected] FreeBSD Documentation Project
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
