Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Gregory Szorc
On 4/11/2013 10:26 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On 4/11/2013 1:13 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: >> That still leave the clutter forever in the mercurial log. I wonder if >> it would be possible to push special branches or bookmarks for >> DONTBUILD and CLOSED TREE, with a server side hook to handle things

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Ted Mielczarek
On 4/11/2013 1:13 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > That still leave the clutter forever in the mercurial log. I wonder if > it would be possible to push special branches or bookmarks for > DONTBUILD and CLOSED TREE, with a server side hook to handle things > nicely. Mercurial has this thing called "push k

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Mike Hommey
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Justin Lebar wrote: > > It bothers me that we're cluttering up our commit messages with > > ephemeral data unrelated to the actual change. DONTBUILD and CLOSED > > TREE are the worst offenders. > > What if we asked people to put DONTBUILD / CLOSED TREE in

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Justin Lebar
> It bothers me that we're cluttering up our commit messages with > ephemeral data unrelated to the actual change. DONTBUILD and CLOSED > TREE are the worst offenders. What if we asked people to put DONTBUILD / CLOSED TREE in a new line at the bottom of their commit message? Most of the time we l

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Steve Fink
It bothers me that we're cluttering up our commit messages with ephemeral data unrelated to the actual change. DONTBUILD and CLOSED TREE are the worst offenders. I would also like to have machine-readable tags for regular push vs bustage fix vs backout vs merge, because they would be useful for

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Benjamin Smedberg
On 4/10/2013 11:23 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: Mercurial and Git both support the ability to attach arbitrary key-value string data to commits. There is an abundance of awesomeness that could be realized if we started storing [machine readable] information inside our commits (not inside the commit m

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-11 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 08:23:37PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > Mercurial and Git both support the ability to attach arbitrary key-value > string data to commits. There is an abundance of awesomeness that could > be realized if we started storing [machine readable] information inside > our commits

Re: Annotating Commits

2013-04-10 Thread Anthony Jones
On 11/04/13 15:23, Gregory Szorc wrote: > Mercurial and Git both support the ability to attach arbitrary key-value > string data to commits. There is an abundance of awesomeness that could > be realized if we started storing [machine readable] information inside > our commits (not inside the commit

Annotating Commits

2013-04-10 Thread Gregory Szorc
Mercurial and Git both support the ability to attach arbitrary key-value string data to commits. There is an abundance of awesomeness that could be realized if we started storing [machine readable] information inside our commits (not inside the commit messages). Here are some examples: * Who the r