I'm sure that last thing that you want to hear is another complaint after all of the work you have gone to, but I'm not sure just listing directories is a better compromise. At least before I could see the difference between CHANGES and STATUS, now I just see "trunk" which could be any one of a number of files. Not all of which I am interested in. Personally I would opt for file listings rather than directory listings to keep the subject line shorter and more informative. I also don't need to see "svn commit: rxxxx" at the front of every message. I already know it is an SVN commit based on the mailing list it came from. And if I am really interested in the revision number, I'm sure I can get that from the message content.
Thanks again for all of your hard work. Brad >>> Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friday, November 19, 2004 12:12:39 PM >>> --On Friday, November 19, 2004 11:11 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now that we have converted to SVN, why doesn't the subject line > include the file that is being changed in the commit message? This > makes it harder to prioritize patches that need to be reviewed. Our CVS mailer only showed the last directory (with files) that was committed - so subject lines were *always* inaccurate when touching multiple directories. The SVN mailer always shows all directories that were modified. I think that's a far better compromise. Plus, we've received a number of complaints that the subject lines were too long to be useful: hence just the directory names. *shrug* -- justin
