Danek Duvall wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:07:55PM -0800, Stephen Hahn wrote:
* Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-02 15:01]:
I'm also happy to change this something like "Changesets Included: XX"
if that will make it more parse-able.
So if you had
Latest revision:
Total changesets:
the format would be same for = 1, > 1. Acceptable?
I'd rather have a list of included changesets, as that lets someone parse
the email and extract the exact list of changeset added, while I believe
that if you only have the number of changesets, you may run into trouble
when there are merges (which will happen even in ON under certain
circumstances, and not all repos will have our rules).
I could be wrong, though -- if all changesets in a changegroup can be
determined strictly only the last-applied changeset id and the number of
changesets, then having just that information ought to be okay.
However, I'm still a little leery of eliding changeset information like
this. We still don't have new ON putback rules worked out yet, and I've
been thinking about pushing for more granular changesets than we have
currently, basically encouraging people to have one bug per changeset, and
do pushes of changegroups with multiple changesets if they have more than
one bug. This will preserve our current use of delta comments to map
deltas to bugids, which IMHO is pretty important.
You should be able to derive the included changesets by taking the
last-applied changeset id and the "Total changesets" number of
changesets prior to that.
The problem with explicitly listing the changesets is again with seeding
the initial repository of projects that are downstream from something
like ON. A notification with 3000+ changeset ids would be unwieldy..
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
