On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Muhammad Alkarouri wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 05:06, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 07:41, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > > > > > > > I disagree with Nadim here. 'cvs2cl' is a tool but I would much rather > > see relevant information in the ChangeLog. cvs2cl simply dumps cvs logs > > in a changelog file. What BiCon has had is a decent ChangeLog file and I > > would hate to see it degrade to cvs2cl which. I think of 'cvs2cl' as a > > 'last resort' when the people maintaining a project have not bothered to > > keep their ChangeLog updated. > > > > Please do re-consider this change. > > > > Regards > > I have actually been relying on cvs2cl in my commits, and I thought that > will do it, specially as I do small commits every day these days. > > Anyway, as we are all agreeing on this, we will do it manually. > So my next commit will update the ChangeLog to catch up.
Well, I do *not* agree here :). I have changed my philosophy to use cvs2cl. For a simple reason: I usually had to type the same comment twice: Once when doing commit, another time when writing in ChangeLog. For cvs2cl to work perfectly, a few things should be considered: * Commit regulartly and locally: Means, if you fix a bug or enhance a sub-system, just commit that piece as soon as that part is done. Do NOT do a global commit when you are totally done with everything. * Write extended CVS messages: Just write what you like to write in ChangeLog in there. But please don't commit two different things together. you cvs ci this..., and then cvs ci that.... Ok or not Ok? Let me know ;). behdad > Regards _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
