On 05-Apr-13 22:16:54 +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > [2 messages deleted] > > The current method is working quite well. There is not much overhead > for me. Only disadvantage is that you get ten updates at the same time, > every two weeks or so. I don't think the version history is interesting > enough that someone misses it.
Well, I remember at least two occasions where I pulled up the Mercurial log (to answer a Stack Overflow question or investigate why Vim behaved differently after an update), arrived at the commit, and then didn't know how to proceed. "Updated runtime files" isn't exactly helpful, and the fact that the updates may have originated from any message on vim_dev from the preceding several weeks (or even was prompted by a private message to Bram) makes searching for the reason tedious. I think there should be the same level of accountability for runtime updates in Mercurial; it's not so much more work to commit each change separately and provide a short suitable message. It's less about the timeliness; I'm fine with biweekly updates. > [13 lines deleted] -- regards, ingo -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
