> In some cases we use other utilities to inference changes to files > besides hg, for example, OpenGrok and webrev. In the case for Opengrok, > it truncates all but the first line of comments in the changeset, so > that the comments are of no relevance of the associated file at all.
That would seem to be a bug against OpenGrok, which should be using the description in place of the summary for each changeset. > In the case for webrev, it lumps all the comments for every file thereby > confusing the reviewer of which is the relevant CR. Webrev doesn't lump anything together. It reports what is in the repository under review. If the webrev is generated from a repository that has been recommitted, you'll see what you describe. But if it's generated (as seems more appropriate) from a repository with a valid change history, it will report comments sensibly. > A solution, as I think Milan already suggested, could include multiple > changesets in a workspace, but alas this is cumbersome to manage (viz > re-commits). But I'm sure someone will create a clever tool to easily > manage multiple changesets in a ws, it's just a matter of time :) The cadmium tools don't support this. There are ways to achieve it, now. Use of export/import works gracefully, as does using the mq extension. The pain of learning Mercurial cannot, as I have previously stated, be avoided. We're not going back to "the old model." But we're also not shoving additional tools down the throats of the development community. --Mark
