On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Jukka Salmi wrote: > Diego Biurrun --> dwm (2007-01-25 13:25:34 +0100): > > Sorry for butting in late, but .. > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Jukka Salmi wrote: > > > Anselm R. Garbe --> dwm (2007-01-18 13:21:11 +0100): > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 12:58:54PM +0100, Javier wrote: > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > I'm subscribed to the suckless hackers mail list and I think it could > > > > > be great if hg changes mails include the patch of each revision. Is it > > > > > possible? Am I the only person who thinks it's a good idea? > > > > > > > > What do others think about this proposal? > > > > > > Hmm, and if the changes are huge? I don't think this is a good idea... > > > > Huge changes on a small program? How? > > "Small" in reference to lines of program code is probably greater than > "small" in reference to lines of an email message...
Commit diffs are still small usually, i.e. just few kb. > > > The commit mail already includes the revision number, thus it's easy > > > enough to get the patch (cd $dwm; hg log -r$rev -p). > > > > But this way nobody can discuss and comment on the patch. Review is not > > going to take place. > > BS. Bullshit? Easy, no need to get aroused here, sheesh ... > I don't know of any project that includes the actual diffs with their > commit messages. Well, then you sure haven't seen that many.. I work on multimedia stuff and there most projects do it. At least MPlayer, FFmpeg, xine... > Nevertheless changes referenced in these commit > messages are discussed and reviewed. If you make it hard for people to get at the diffs they are less likely to look at it. Yes, one command is hard. I glance over every single MPlayer and FFmpeg commit, the others do the same. I would never do that if I had to retrieve the diff with even a single command. Diego
