From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bill Wohler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS commits and logs Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:15:06 -0800 Organization: Newt Software Message-ID: <87r6wh1o5h.fsf@olgas.newt.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1162768610 1334 80.91.229.2 (5 Nov 2006 23:16:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 06 00:16:45 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgrEI-0003uC-5X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:16:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgrEH-0003hG-Ks for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:16:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GgrDP-0002o3-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:15:47 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GgrDO-0002lV-7B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:15:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgrDN-0002l2-TZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:15:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GgrDM-0005Vs-R0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:15:45 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GgrD7-0003dG-QV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:15:29 +0100 Original-Received: from h-68-165-5-48.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.5.48]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:15:29 +0100 Original-Received: from wohler by h-68-165-5-48.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:15:29 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 45 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: h-68-165-5-48.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:T9oZlxJRUZml6Jp1UiGgIYUWY1U= X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:61842 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > . CVS log entries should be simply the ChangeLog entries with the > file name and the leading TABs stripped. I agree if only one file is committed. However, if multiple files are committed, I'd say leave the file names and strip the leading TABs. > . Each file should be committed separately, even if the changes are > related, and the CVS log entry should be for the changes in that > file only. In particular, the modified files and the ChangeLog > file with the appropriate log entry should be committed separately > (thus the CVS log entries for ChangeLog files should never include > log entries for the modified files). Exception: it is okay to > commit several changes to a single ChangeLog file in one "cvs ci" > command if those changes are related to the same feature/bugfix. This isn't clear. In the first sentence you say, "even if the changes are related" but the exception says--paraphrased--"except if the change are related". Which is it? I hope the latter since if one file depends on the changes of another, you had better check both files in at the same time. It's too bad we're not using Subversion, but by checking the files in with the same commit, we can reduce the chance of breaking an update that occurs before the other files are checked in. Second, by enumerating all of the file names in a single log message, you can see easily which files are affected by a given change. > . The ChangeLog files should be committed with an empty log message > (unless this is a real change in the ChangeLog file itself, not an > addition of log entries). I check in the ChangeLog at the same time as I check in the file whose change it describes. It's easy and the ChangeLog check-in is less prone to be forgotten. It seems this is a common practice. Is there a good reason for your rule? Speaking of Subversion, if we switched to it, this discussion would go away since we wouldn't even need a ChangeLog ;-). The "svn log" command provides everything you need to know, and you can say "svn log > ChangeLog" when you're creating a tarball for release. -- Bill Wohler http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD