From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: bitkeeper gone in 2 weeks - which RCS? Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20050616113654.GA10969@thunk.org> References: <20050616011647.GW26633@waste.org> <20050615230320.GB10613@64m.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050615230320.GB10613@64m.dyndns.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Christopher Li Cc: Ian Pratt , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Mercurial List List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:03:20PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote: > > Agreed. I've never really used the "different commit > > comment per file" thing in bitkeeper. Well, I used it > > in the beginning, but I stopped using it after I found > > out that "bk changes" didn't actually show them anyway! > > > > For one thing, it has performance implication of open every single > file to get that per-file change log if you run the change history. > I am still not convince the per file change log is very useful > feature. Having more place to look is not always a good thing. I wouldn't necessarily want to see the per-file change logs when looking at the change history. It's for when you want to dive into the sources and do a more detailed look into a single changeset, or when looking at the revision history for a particular file. (i.e., when looking at the file revisions history in hg-web). - Ted