[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Issue 1628

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-07-23 00:05:32 CEST

SteveKing <steveking@gmx.ch> writes:
> I agree about the log message. That's why I rewrote it to include the
> modified functions.

Oh, sorry, I didn't see that! My bad.

> But you should also consider that before someone actually commits a
> patch, it should be reviewed. And with a good review, one should be
> able to adjust the log message easily.
> From my point of view, if you can't write a log message for a patch,
> you shouldn't commit it because you don't understand it well enough.

Well, I wasn't talking about "can", I was talking about how to use
people's time most efficiently.

> Sure, for patches sent for TSVN I sure like to have a log message with
> the patch. But if there's no log message I just write one myself.

That's great! But, like I said:

   "unless TSVN's patch reception and incorporation rates are similar
    to Subversion's, it's not a useful comparison, I think."


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 23 00:57:47 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.