Re: Merge Tracking Auditing - SoC

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:

> 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.

Yes, exactly. This is a divergence from what svnmerge.py does (IIRC,
Giovanni suggested it), in that there's no indentation of the
*original* log message(s), and that we aren't listing the *actual* log
message.