sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Andraž \"ruskie\" Levstik" <ruskie AT mages.ath.cx>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:26:52 +0200
Jeremy Blosser wrote :
> > ------- Additional Comment #6 From Seth Woolley 2006-07-27 16:32 -------
> >
> > Yes, for changelogs, git's merges don't work. I'd almost prefer to have
> > HISTORY be a git commit that took the commit info and auto-generated the
> > HISTORY.
>
> It's been suggested before, and it's certainly doable, but the typical
> response is that our HISTORY files are a different use case than the info
> we want in the raw SCM changelog. That we keep history different places in
> different forms is intended as a feature. Arwed can speak to that more if
> he wants...
>
What kind of info could there be autogenerated??? I mean will it read the
devs mind on what he was fixing. I mean ok you can get what files were
fixed and if maybe there was a version bump(just parse the VERSION in
the diff) but the rest is kinda impossible.
Like:
* BUILD: completly overhauled it, made it use scons instead of make
* DEPENDS: added FOO to be non-optional but this might change in the
future so it shoud be checked on each update
I just don't see having autogenerated HISTORY be so precise.
The thing I'd like to see with git and bugzilla is a link between
them(bugscm) so that one can link the bug and the commit hash without
the need of double checking the commit hash and posting it in etc.
Just my 0.2 €
--
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik
Source Mage GNU/Linux Games grimoire guru
Geek/Hacker/Tinker
Hacker FAQ: http://www.plethora.net/%7eseebs/faqs/hacker.html
Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.
Key id = A7A9E461
Key fingerprint = 757E C16B F5B7 DC27 B003 CCED CF95 3A77 A7A9 E461
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Jaka Kranjc, 07/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 07/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Matthew Clark, 07/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, seth, 07/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Robin Cook, 07/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Jeremy Blosser, 07/22/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Ladislav Hagara, 07/22/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Jeremy Blosser, 07/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Jeremy Blosser, 07/22/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Jeremy Blosser, 07/27/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 07/28/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Jeremy Blosser, 07/28/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, seth, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
seth, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Arwed von Merkatz, 07/28/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Arwed von Merkatz, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Ladislav Hagara, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Jeremy Blosser, 07/28/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 07/28/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Andrew Stitt, 07/28/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback, Arwed von Merkatz, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Jeremy Blosser, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 07/28/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] git feedback,
Jeremy Blosser, 07/22/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.