Hi Stephan,
the integration of a CWSs will usually happen in a single step, so it's
principally not possible to attach single file commit messages to the
changed files.
But we can have a kind of "Changlog" attached to the integration
revision with the logs of every commit together with the files names
(paths). I'm not sure if people will really want this, but if we have
the need it can be done.
As for the integration of CWS which were started in CVS, if it really
bothers you that the comments are not migrated I can implement something
along the above mentioned line. I would need a script which extracts the
comments from CVS, collect them in a file and attach this file as
integration comment. I guess I need two days or so for scripting and it
might slightly delay the integration of your CWS. Is this OK for you?
Heiner
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 08/28/08 16:01, Jörg Jahnke wrote:
Hi,
Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb:
Martin Hollmichel wrote:
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Hi Martin,
since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into
DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already
integrated into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there
are some quite huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into
DEV300 today or in the next few days.
The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week
(today or tomorrow).
Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone)
could be a good basis for migration.
yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok.
So are there objections against starting the migration directly after
DEV300 m31 gets finished? Otherwise we (Hamburg RE) would start at
that time. I should add that ideally any CWSs with greater changes
that are finished already should make it into m31 to avoid unncessary
work.
There is
<http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsb93>
which touches quite a number of files and should go into QA tomorrow.
Not sure whether it is worth waiting for it, though---those who have to
do the actual migration work may have an opinion here.
(However, what would disappoint me somewhat is if the CWS's carefully
written CVS commit comments were effectively lost, for example in case
the CWS is not integrated into the final CVS HEAD revision but only into
some SVN revision other than the initial one---that the corresponding
SVN revision contains changes for which commit comments can be found by
looking at a specific CWS branch tag in the corresponding CVS file log
is so much more obscure than if the commit comments can be found by
looking at the last HEAD entry in the corresponding CVS file log.)
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
