though srini has already done a good(TM) decision on this, my two cents:

Am Freitag, den 05.10.2007, 10:38 +0200 schrieb Frederic Crozat:
> Second, being self-contained (and therefore, ease of use for external
> maintainers / lurkers / packagers / release-team). You are only thinking
> of svn log when using viewcvs. But if you are, just like me, subscribed
> to svn-commit mailing list, it is really much easier to see directly
> what it a commit purpose (fix a typo, a bug, etc) without having to rely
> on another tool / website. Same apply when using svn log command
> directly.

for me it makes easier to search in the codebase whether a crasher bug
has been perhaps already fixed in svn by searching through the changelog
for potential fixes (if a crasher bug report is about an old version, or
if one source file has received a lot of changes, you can't use the line
numbers of the stacktrace to look up the "source area" anymore). i've
done this several times within the nautilus code and it can save some
time to work that way, with evo it's sometimes really hard because you
have to look up and read the bug reports all the time, yepp.

 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | failed

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to