Daniel Rall wrote:
> 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.
I like this representation better. Is there a particular reason for
omitting the *actual* log message?
-Hyrum
Received on Tue Apr 17 18:56:03 2007