Le 09/05/2011 19:54, R. David Murray a écrit : >>> No it isn't. The commit message isn't pulled into the new branch. >> Sorry, your terminology does not make sense. If you mean that the >> commit message is not reused in the new commit after the merge, >> it’s >> true. However, the commit message with the relevant information is >> available as part of the changesets that have been pulled and >> merged. > > The changesets are in the repository and there are pointers to them > from the merge changeset, sure, but the data isn't in the checkout > (that's how I understood "pulled in to the new branch"). No commit message is ever in the checkout, so I don’t follow you. > If I do 'hg log' and search for a revno (that I got from hg > annotate), > the commit message describing the change is not attached to that > revno, Ah, I understand your problem now. I would not object to a policy requiring to put helpful information in merge changesets commit messages, like “Merge fixes for #4444 and #5555” or “Merge doc fixes” when there are no bug reports. I’m not sure about the “atomic” merge changesets idea that someone else expressed; I don’t think it would be that useful. > nor as far as I know is there a tool that makes it easy to get from > that > revno to the explanatory commit message. That's what Victor and I > are > talking about. Is there a tool that fixes this problem? I tend to use graphical tools for history viewing. I like the GTK version of TortoiseHg, or failing that the graph displayed by “hg serve” if you enable the graphlog extension and use a browser with JavaScript.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4