[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merging the unicode-2 branch (was: Re: Selection-set editing without
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: merging the unicode-2 branch (was: Re: Selection-set editing without VC-dired) |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:54:18 -0500 |
> Recent trends in VCS make the ChangeLog file more important. The
> reason I dropped my opposition to multi-file commits is that I
> realized that the info I used to get by looking at a CVS log, I could
get
> from the ChangeLog file instead with a suitable selective visibility
> mode.
Can we then proceed with the unicode-2 branch merging then?
Sorry, I don't follow. I think there is a misunderstanding here.
Splitting
the ChangeLog per file was what was blocking the merge.
I think that is the misunderstanding. What I asked for was not
to "split" the ChangeLog file. It was to simplify it,
getting rid of unnecessary duplicate entries. For instance,
if we have
(foobar): Change xyz.
and on a previous date
(foobar): New function.
then we only need the latter. If foobar is a new function, being
installed now, then we only need the "new function" entry.
- Re: Selection-set editing without VC-dired, Stefan Monnier, 2008/01/01
- merging the unicode-2 branch (was: Re: Selection-set editing without VC-dired), Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/01/03
- Re: merging the unicode-2 branch (was: Re: Selection-set editing without VC-dired), Richard Stallman, 2008/01/06
- Re: merging the unicode-2 branch, Miles Bader, 2008/01/06
- Re: merging the unicode-2 branch, Nick Roberts, 2008/01/07
- Re: merging the unicode-2 branch, David Kastrup, 2008/01/07
- Re: merging the unicode-2 branch, Miles Bader, 2008/01/07