Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
>> Daniel Rall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> ...
>>>> * In the case of svn log, would the user be better served if we just
>>>> included the original revision logs in line with the logs (i.e., no
>>>> special indentation, etc.)?
>>> A good case has been made for no indentation. Some indication of that
>>> we're not showing the actual log message would be useful.
>> I'm having trouble parsing that last sentence. Would you mind restating it?
>
> If we decide not to show the *actual* log message used with a commit
> (which would be consistent with what we're going to do for 'blame'),
> some indication in the output of the *original* log message(s) that
> they aren't the actual log message, and are being displayed in lieu of
> the actual message, might be useful.
So, basically something to the effect of: (the revision numbers below
are somewhat bogus.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r24602 | dlr | 2007-04-16 19:02:48 -0500 (Mon, 16 Apr 2007) | 3 lines
=== result of merge in r24678 ===
* notes/merge-tracking.txt
Add issue #2769, and sign up for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r24601 | dlr | 2007-04-16 18:50:29 -0500 (Mon, 16 Apr 2007) | 3 lines
=== result of merge in r24678 ===
* notes/merge-tracking.txt
Sign Kamesh up for the "all unmerged revisions" task, per his request.
-Hyrum
Received on Tue Apr 17 18:45:09 2007