[darcs-users] Re: always long comment
David Roundy
droundy at abridgegame.org
Fri Aug 6 09:57:37 UTC 2004
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 04:07:08PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:58:21AM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> > Second is to have a repository or darcs environment variable specifying
> > a shell scripts/program/whatever to create a template so that we can
> > create whatever standard information set we want with in the template as
> > a prompter. For example, I would want something like:
> >
> > 03-Aug-2004 esj:
> >
> > >>> darcs darcs darcs <<<
> > changed files:
> > M ./modules/camram_email.py -9 +125
> >
> > in this template, you see a divider line >>> <<< and I would want that
> > the divider line and everything below to be deleted when I was done with
> > the editing process.
>
> You're talking about what you see when you user darcs record
> I usually want to scan all the changes anyway. I commonly open "darcs
> diff -u | vi -" in another window, and delete sections from the diff
> after I add an appropriate entry in the long comment; but having both in
> one file automatically would be easier.
>
> I would vote for putting all the changes to be recorded in this long
> comment file (under a divider line, of course) by default (not sure
> whether diff or whatsnew format is a better default), as it encourages
> double-checking and more accurate long comments, and is cheap.
> Specifying an arbitrary script might be overkill, but maybe not.
I agree that this is a good idea, and would welcome patches to implement
it (am swamped myself at the moment). I'd say a --summary followed by the
actual patch in whatsnew format would be great (bonus for whatsnew -u
format, but it's more coding work that way).
> Related idea: When using --edit-long-comment, put the patch name at
> the top of the --edit-long-comment file, so one can modify that as one
> reviews the changes. Actually, don't prompt for the patch name, just
> put "Patch name: " at the top of the file and let the user type it.
Hmmm. Sounds like a good idea.
> Vaguely related idea: Allow rerecord to --edit-long-comment. Maybe
> even allow it to change the patch name.
I thought about this and ruled it out. However, on second consideration it
doesn't seem so unreasonable. With the above "Patch name:" change, this
would also allow changing the patch name, but without complicating the
interface.
The reason I didn't implement anything like this was that I didn't want to
complicate the interface of rerecord, but this --edit-long-comment when
combined with the "Patch name:" extension would be quite a nice, clean
interface. Without the "Patch name:" change, I wouldn't like to add the
--edit-long-comment change because it seems to break symmetry to allow you
to change the long comment but not the patch name.
--
David Roundy
http://www.abridgegame.org
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list