I really hope that refactoring-aware diffs are on their way. They'll allow for a whole class of merge conflicts to be resolved automatically.
Chris On 18 July 2012 14:19, Leonardo Borges <leonardoborges...@gmail.com> wrote: > I haven't been following this discussion that closely so far but I'd > like to comment on this bit: > > > One of my frustrations with source control systems is the way you end up > repeating information, e.g. Modified function X, Refactored function Y. > > Added defmethod etc… This information is already present in the commit, > after all its what you DID. The system should be able to work that out > > and provide that information. > > Good commit messages contain more than that. For instance it would > contain the reasoning behind the refactoring of function Y or the > change to function X. That might be clear to you and perhaps some of > your team. New members - and existing ones - might lack that context. > > My point is that I don't think the proposed output should replace a > well hand crafted commit message. > > Cheers, > Leonardo Borges > www.leonardoborges.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
