Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

[Dustin Sallings]

On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 15:41 US/Pacific, Pau Aliagas wrote:

> Well, we have "express commits": tla commit -L "your explanations".
> Combining both like CVS is just unimportant because you could have an
> alias in your shell to do it. Once you get used it's evenbetter to 
> have it
> this way because you can fill in the log as you do the changes. See, it
> makes you work better.

	Not that the model seems strange to me or anything, but I don't think 
that it's valid to generally assert that adding a new step to a process 
necessarily makes the process better.

	I usually don't do any logging before a commit.  It'd be nice to be 
able to do perforce/cvs style commits with notes, I think.  Of course, 
if in the end, we only have one model, I like the one we have.

	OpenCM does both in that you can edit your future checkin message at 
any time up to the checkin (at which point it will be presented to you 
for your final edit).  I think the important aspect of the OpenCM model 
is that the user gets to choose the appropriate time to enter logs.

	I think it's best to offer suggestions (as defaults) for how things 
should work, but still let users create their own work flow.  For 
example, I really like the explicit tagging method and thing it's a 
good default, but some people like other methods.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________