Torsten Curdt wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi > > The problem is that not necessarily stastus changes are done in one > > commit, there is a different granularity in the two. This is the reason > > why some projects that were using commit message extraction systems are > > now also using a status file.
I too am concerned about the different granularity. > where is the problem? > > do one commit without the magic > words and one with them. not > *all* changes have to go into > the status file. Would you please explain this. I don't get it. I don't have trouble editing status.xml when needed but i am interested in your ideas. There are probably many occasions where each of us has forgotten to add an important entry to status.xml and so your solution might help. -- David Crossley
