Markus Rothe wrote: [Tue Aug 09 2005, 07:36:18AM EDT]
Personaly I find it a little bit annoying to write changes twise.
One time in Changelog and one time in --commitmsg. How about using
the commitmsg for Changelog as default, but if a Changelog entry
already exists, then write nothing to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If you're the sort that writes good ChangeLog messages anyway, there's
nothing wrong with reusing them as the commit message. If you have a
really really good reason for not using a ChangeLog message, or if you
haven't yet written a shell alias for reusing ChangeLog
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:36:18 +
Markus Rothe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personaly I find it a little bit annoying to write changes twise. One
time in Changelog and one time in --commitmsg. How about using the
commitmsg for Changelog as default, but if a Changelog entry already
exists, then
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:36:18 +
Markus Rothe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personaly I find it a little bit annoying to write changes twise. One
time in Changelog and one time in --commitmsg. How about using the
commitmsg for Changelog as default, but if a Changelog
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 13:55, Simon Stelling wrote:
#!/bin/bash
echangelog ${1}
repoman scan
repoman commit -m ${1}
Even simpler, as repoman commit abort in case of errors in repoman scan:
ecommit() {
echangelog $@
repoman commit -m $@
}
add that to your .bashrc.
I use
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:23:20 + Markus Rothe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Stephen Bennett wrote:
| On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:36:18 +
| Markus Rothe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Personaly I find it a little bit annoying to write changes twise.
| One time in Changelog and one time in
