John Ojemann writes: > Clearly, it's ugly to do a single commit where all bugs appear in the > log for every file;
It is? I think it depends on the situation, and on what you put in the bug reports. Aggregating things that are completely unrelated may be fairly ugly (and probably unnecessary), but aggregating related things that are all fixed by a single integration doesn't necessarily strike me as "ugly." > but is it acceptable to do an individual commit for > each file, and then do a single push? Yes, you can do that if it's necessary. I wouldn't go wild with it. Having dozens of changesets in a single push would also be irritating. John Ojemann writes: > Follow-up Question: > > Provided there is a way to do what's described below, how then would a > "recommit" be handled? A "recommit" will collapse all the changesets into one, which is how things ordinarily work in ON. > It's surprising that a "commit" can work on individual files, while the > "recommit" can only work on all of the changed files at once (no > apparent options). The versioning in Mercurial is not per file. It's on the repository itself. Thus, I don't think that doing a "recommit" on individual files makes much sense. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
