Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Look at the initialization of `entry', a local variable.
>
> - (entry (if (functionp 'add-log-file-name)
> - (add-log-file-name buffer-file file-name)
> - (file-relative-name buffer-file (tla-tree-root))))
>
> =>
>
> + (entry (add-log-file-name buffer-file file-name))
>
> This change is ok?
Actually strange ! Don't know where this comes from.
> In *inventory* buffer, I can read my ChangeLog with ?L.
> However, in the the changelog, only my changelog is appeared.
Yes, "tla changelog" only shows you the logs you have written.
Alternatively, you can look at your patch-log in your {arch}/
directory.
Actually, we are abusing tla's "distributed" mechanism: The normal way
would be to have one "main" archive, with one "main" committer, like
Tom does for tla itself. Other contributors would only merge from him.
Our way of doing distributed development is a bit more "anarchic":
Everybody merge from everybody, and we usually do "big merges", i.e
lots of unrelated patches in the same merge. The result is that our
ChangeLog is not really clear ...
I think we should continue like we are doing now. That's an
interesting experiment. Maybe we should reconsider after the release
of a 1.0, because development should be less active, but breaking a
feature will become more critical.
--
Matthieu
