That sounds like a bad idea to me. IMO, this is a case of "good enough" getting in the way of "good" as far as solutions to your annoyance.
Off the top of my head, I can think of two workflow habits that may help you: 1) set up/turn on gpg signing, so you'll be required to sign commits before they're actually applied. 2) do not use -m, but let fossil through you into the default editor to type your commit message interactively. There are interesting articles on git commit messages that dovetails with this problem, too, which may add even further value [0] [1]. Currently, by default, I think we're not really setup to take advantage of the advice in the articles, but (to my mind) it sounds like a great place to be, and getting there (directly via canonical fossil, or libfossil or other tool) is really easy to imagine. -bch [0] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15324900/standard-to-follow-when-writing-git-commit-messages [1] http://robots.thoughtbot.com/5-useful-tips-for-a-better-commit-message On Apr 13, 2014 4:41 PM, "Stanislav Paskalev" <ksh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi fossil-devs, > I often reuse a console to work with fossil as well as something else > (e.g. compile, run tests, etc) > > Due to my trigger-happy fingers I've had quite a few cases where > I inadvertently ran fossil commit -m ".." from history when in reality I > wanted to run my tests for example. > > Fossil could compare the current message against the latest checkin in the > active branch and warn if they match. If this sounds fine - I can make and > send a patch :) > > Regards, > Stanislav Paskalev > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
