[FFmpeg-cvslog] r14267 - trunk/libavcodec/ra288.c

[Vitor Sessak]

Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 05:23 +0200, Vitor Sessak wrote:
>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>> Here's some sample output from "svn log":
> 
>> That's explains why nobody uses "svn log" in the tree root.
> 
> People do view the overall logs of a project and it is useful. 

That was not my point. It is just that "svn log" does a lousy job (I 
didn't expect that viewVC did _also_ a lousy job).

> If you don't

I do it sometimes, but in general I'm more interested to skimming 
through the list of changed files and read just a few logs, so I just go 
thru my -cvslog mailbox. I agree this is not the best for everyone.

>>>> Does git have any module support (and in the case of ffmpeg, each 
>>> When I said module, I didn't mean it in any sense that anything would
>>> need support for, and certainly not in the cvs sense.
>> It looks like more or less what you are trying to do by hand in the svn 
>> logs...
> 
> You can at most append the filenames, but that does not work well. If
> all commits were to a single file and every file was like "ra288.c"
> (which can be identified without path and has clearly defined
> functionality) then it would be mostly OK, but that is not the case for
> all commits and files, and so it's not a good system overall.

But do you agree it is to do by hand a task that could be automatized 
using just a list of modules and its respective files? And that the name 
of the changed module is a metadata that has not much to do with the 
commit log? Why is so hard for people to see that this is not the 
cleanest solution (_even_ if it is better as it is ATM)?

>> PS for the others members of the list: not that I care that much about 
>> putting "module:" in the svn logs or not. It's just that while there is 
>> no agreed upon policy about it, I'll keep doing as I think it is best.
> 
> To me it sounds more like you're NOT thinking about it and just
> insisting on doing it "the way you've always done".

And to me, people who want to add module name to the commit logs are so 
  dawn sure about it that they cannot be thinking about the subtle 
technical pros and cons of the issue (they are completely blind about 
the cons). My bet is that they are just insisting on doing it "the way 
the linux kernel do".

-Vitor