Randy McMurchy wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 03/11/05 12:48 CST:
OK, so I checked further down and saw the hotplug stuff did get touched.
I'd much prefer it if we could have one commit per distinct change so
it's easier to revert changes or port them to branches.
I agree totally. The commit Jim made is confusing. The log says
"Hotplug updates", yet many other packages were updated, including
Findutils. But the ChangeLog doesn't even mention Findutils.
This makes it impossible to keep abreast, without closely examining
each commit, or rereading the book, both of which should be
unnecessary.
I like the idea of one package update per commit. It wouldn't be so
bad if even the ChangeLog was kept up. But an oversight like this
(omitting the Findutils update) and a too-brief log message on the
commit, makes it very difficult to keep up.
Perhaps this would be a good policy for BLFS, as well.
That's why you always read the changelog, I was distracted when I did
the updates, the rule of thumb is always look at the changelog for
what's been done, the svn commit message are usually about the bulk of
the work.
--
------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
