![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Erik Mouw wrote: > > Well, it's nice to know which repos you pulled from for a particular > release, that makes it easier to figure out what's wrong if/when > something breaks. Well, the thing is, you don't actually get a full list - you at best get a _partial_ list of the merges I do. In fact, it's almost always a proper subset, with (wild wag) 10% of the merges never showing up. If a repo has already merged with me on the far end, my merge will be just a "fast-forward to what they did", which won't show up as a separate commit. Similarly, if somebody is on a different time-zone from me and just happens to do his work while I'm sleeping, and I pull the tree first thing in the morning, there won't be any overlapping development and again it's just a fast-forward. So no merges at _all_ may be showing on either side in that case.. This very much does happen, exactly because we have a "merge often" > Isn't the easy fix to put the long changelog information on a single > line? Sure. It's just a shell script that generates the message: merge_name=$(echo "$1" | sed 's:\.git/*$::') if [ "$2" ] then merge_name="'$2' branch from $merge_name" merge_head="refs/heads/$2" fi but the reason I do it on multiple lines is that that looks better in the long format, I think. But maybe the short format is the one I should prioritize, since that's the one that also shows up in the summary line for the graphical tools (webgit and gitk). Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-06-07 17:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||