Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
>>lundblad@tigris.org writes:
>>
>>>Merge r11364, r11410 from trunk to 1.1.x branch.
>>>
>>>Approved by: +1: bliss, kfogel, ghudson
>>>
>>>Fix issue 2076 - fsfs does not check if the revision is valid for proplist/
>>> propedit/etc
>>>
>>>Followup to r11364 to fix a problem pointed out by ghudson, namely
>>>that an empty file is not a valid revprop file. While changing this,
>>>move the creation of the revprop file back up one call level to where
>>>the svn:date revprop is set, to make sure that the revprop file for
>>>revision zero never exists without svn:date set.
>>
>>We generally don't repeat the original log message in the merge
>>revision, because that creates data-duplication situation. For
>>example, if someone were to propedit the original now, the copy would
>>remain unchanged -- oops, nasty divergence! :-)
>
> Looking back at the logs, I see a lot of commit messages in the merge log
> message.
Do you mean you see a lot of duplication of log message contents in
other people's merge log messages?
> Did you mean I used too much of the original? A shorter summary
> would be enough? A summary is good so you don't have to check the
> revisions to get an idea of what the merge was all about.
Yes, I believe that's about whart Karl means. In the log message above,
delete the last paragraph (which was a summary of r11410 individually),
just leaving the short "Fix issue 2076 - fsfs ..." paragraph which is a
summary of the whole thing.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 22 00:56:53 2004