On Sun 9.Nov'08 at 14:00:42 -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > On Sun 9.Nov'08 at 12:28:53 -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
[sniped] > > Take a look at this commit here: > > > > http://hg.windowmaker.info/wmaker/rev/8640d186c4f4 > > > > and now tell me what you read as the 'author' field on the header. > > > > That is clearly wrong. > > Misleading, yes, but I believe that is fixable. Take a look now, and the > instances of Author in the header have been replaced with the more > correct Committer. At least now the information is not technically wrong, it is just slightly useless (it is more important to have the Author:, as the committer will always be you). > Git has a concept of both Author and Committer. Mercurial does not. The > question is if ``user'' is the committer or the author. I see it as the > committer. If the end result is to make more sense to everybody, "user" should be used as the author. That way the output of 'hg log' would be more useful. > Perhaps we should come up with a standardised commit log format that > clearly shows who authored each patch as well as what it is for. Well, requiring a good commit log message is about having a history which is worth looking when you want to understand why the code is the way it is now. So it is up to the commiter to do a good job, paying attention to this respect and asking for good commit logs to people who send patches, or fixing them by himself. The author/commiter issue is about the tool you use, or _how_ you use it. But let's try to focus on reviewing the patches themselves instead. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
