[Zope3-checkins] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: SVN: Zope3/trunk/functional_tests/ Remove unused directory.

Wed May 26 08:42:42 EDT 2004

Fred Drake wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 May 2004 06:31 am, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>  > The standard post-commit script for sending mails prepends diffs with an
>  > explanatory text explaning changes, especially listing what happened to
>  > each file, e.g:
> ...
>  > As much as I like our custom script (e.g. the log message in the
>  > subject), I would prefer if we could have at least the list of
>  > Removed/Added/Modified files back.
> 
> That would be nice, though I'd prefer to have it below the commit message in 
> the email body.

That works for me too, but please *above* the diff.

>  > P.S.: I also think the "SVN:" in the subject is not necessary since we
>  > have separate mailinglists for commit mails and it can hardly be used as
> 
> Oddly, I like having it there, especially when I see that bugs are being fixed 
> and both repositories are being touched (say, a Zope 2 bug on the 2.7 branch 
> and the head).  The CVS emails still say "CVS:"; are you suggesting that be 
> removed as well?

No, the CVS should stay in there to tell them apart, for the very same 
reason you stated (patches in both CVS and svn). Without the 'SVN:', it 
will still be unique. I would even argue that it would make it visually 
easier. Right now, my email client lists a lot of:

CVS ...
SVN ...
CVS ...
CVS ...
SVN ...
SVN ...

Three capitals is hard to tell a part when taking a quick glance at 
commit messages.

>  > P.P.S.: Are there any plans to move some satellite projects to svn, such
>  > as the Docs on the ComponentArchicture (contact example)? IIRC, zpkg is
>  > in CVS, too...
> 
> Yes, zpkg is still in CVS.  While this produces a few command-line snaffus on 
> my part as I switch back and forth (typing "svn" when I needed "cvs", or vice 
> versa), I'd rather put off further migration into Subversion for a bit.  Some 
> of us are drowning in the Zope X3 release cycle at the moment.  One drowning 
> at a time would be appreciated.  ;-)

Sure. I'm not saying that we should convert everything *right* now, but 
moving relatively independent stuff makes sense, IMO. I'm not suggesting 
to move CMF or something else with a gazillion branches...

Philipp