Re: Commit practices

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

  >     Your opposition to multiple file commits seems to be based on the
  >     assertion that this "bloats the log entries of each file, making them
  >     essentially _unusable_".  
  > 
  >     It's hard to find this assertion valid. 
  > 
  > Perhaps that's because what's useful for me is not the same as
  > what's useful for you.

That is true, but please consider that what you consider useful also has
a HUGE cost, and the benefit seems to be only for you (Nobody else seems
to agree that there is a benefit at all). 

The cost is HUGE:
  - the multi-tty branch could have merged a few months earlier, it
  waited until Glenn and I had time to spend a few days rewriting the
  logs. The benefit of that: zero as far as I can see. 
  - the unicode branch is waiting for someone to rewrite the logs. 
Merging this branches later costs a lot because many more people could
use/test/debug/improve them. Time spent working on emacs by volunteers
is totally context dependent.

  >     Even in that absurd case isearch is quite efficient.
  > 
  > Isearch is efficient on the ChangeLog file, too.  That makes it
  > possible to see all the entries for file foo, one by one.
  > 
  > What the CVS log does (when there are no multi-file checkins) is make
  > it possible to see all the entries for file foo, compactly, many at
  > once on a single screen.  Sometimes I find this a useful capability.
  > Just searching through ChangeLog doesn't do the same job.
  > 
  > Thus I proposed a feature for filtering the ChangeLog file as a new
  > way to do that job.

Does that mean that you don't object to multi-file commits anymore?