On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:49:46AM +0100, Markus Heidelberg wrote: > James Vega, 2010-01-29: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:06:15AM +0100, Markus Heidelberg wrote: > > > Bram Moolenaar, 2010-01-07: > > > > > > > > Let me know if something looks wrong. Once this is "approved" by > > > > vim-dev I'll publish it to a larger audience. > > > > > > Is this the final Vim repository now or do you plan to rewrite it before > > > announcing it officially? Why don't you include the history (patch > > > descriptions) in it? > > > > Patch descriptions are included in the commits. This is more obvious > > from the web interface, but you can see them with hg by giving “hg log” > > the -v option. hg follows the convention where the first line of the > > commit message is the short description and the remaining lines are the > > long description. Only the former is displayed by “hg log” by default. > > Ah, thanks for the explanation. I didn't have time to look into hg more > deeply and am used to see the complete message with "git log".
Understood. I had that same confusion initially. :)
> Now in this case the summary ("updated for version x.y.z") is pretty
> meaningless and it would be better to include a real summary there.
>
> And although still not knowing much about hg, I think it's possible with
> it to include real authorship in the "user" part of the commit instead
> of just adding the name to the "description" part.
I think this may come in time as people get used to the new workflow and
tools, but in the end that's up to Bram and how he wants to take
advantage of the tools.
hg doesn't seem to have the same capability as git where Author and
Committer are distinct concepts, but you can still specify a user to
make the commit as in order to maintain attribution.
--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
