Max Bowsher wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>>> fitz@tigris.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: fitz
>>>> Date: Fri Mar 4 17:10:40 2005
>>>> New Revision: 13266
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>> branches/locking/subversion/libsvn_client/locking_commands.c
>>>> Log:
>>>> Fix stupid crasher bug (committed by me) when attempting to lock files
>>>> that are in subdirectories.
>>>>
>>>> * /trunk/subversion/subversion/libsvn_client/locking_commands.c
>>>> (open_lock_targets): Index into the same array that you're iterating
>>>> over. Duh.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> In several recent commits you've been using a weird form of filename
>>> in log messages.
>>> In this case, it is particularly incorrect, since it says "trunk" but
>>> was actually a branch commit.
>>
>>
>> This is getting worse and worse. Soon we'll be so far along that not a
>> single commit will be made with a well-formed log message.
>>
>> We've relied on self-discipline to keep the format consistent for years
>> now, but it seems that some of the new (and old!) committers are
>> slipping their leash. So. Is it time to write that hook that rejects
>> commits with log messages that don't conform to the documented format?
>
>
> I don't think our format is sufficiently rigorously defined for that
> to be feasible.
>
> I think that the problem is still sufficiently small that
> self-discipline combined with pointing out of mistakes can continue to
> work.
>
> Max.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
Hi List
Sitting back as a relative new indirect user of SVN via TortoiseSVN I
have been monitoring the user and dev lists to get some feel for the
issues that may crop up for me as as single developer.
One which stands out is the inability to rely on the log message to
contain anything meaningful and even worse is for it to be incorrect,
because it relies on human endeavor.
I am quite surprised the log message doesn't automatically contain
something along the lines of the command line parameters and SVN
revision number itself, that resulted in the generation of the log
message, ahead of the user's comments, if any. For instance, when
committing a merge it's far too easy to enter the wrong revision
numbers, either by being +-1 out or be just plain dyslexic with the numbers.
The log entries for tags and branches don't automatically contain the
revision from which they were generated.
If portions of the log entry was automated it might then be possible to
programatically warn the user if they attempted to re-merge from
previously merged revisions or attempt to merge from a point ahead of a
branch point.
Revision control via SVN still appears to be very susceptible to the
influence of human error and ignorance.
In the hands of an experienced users it is very good but not all of us
use it sufficiently or frequently enough to remain fully conversant with
every nuance and so the human errors remain inevitable.
Peter
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 6 02:22:02 2005