cvs commit: src/usr.bin/whois whois.c
sdrhodus at gmail.com
Thu Feb 17 10:31:11 PST 2005
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:13:54 +0000, Hiten Pandya <hmp at xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David Rhodus wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:19:36 +0100, Devon H. O'Dell
> > <dodell at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 03:53 -0800, Liam J. Foy wrote:
> >>>liamfoy 2005/02/17 03:53:33 PST
> >>>DragonFly src repository
> >>> Modified files:
> >>> usr.bin/whois whois.c
> >>> Log:
> >>> - Better handling of a given(-p) invalid port number.
> >>> From: OpenBSD
> >>Don't mean to be picky, but should we start citing revision numbers when
> >>we pick something out of another tree?
> >>Whoops, forgot to send this to the list. I notice that lately revisions
> >>aren't being cited, and it is helpful when you want to know where
> >>they're from.
> >>It'd be cool if the revisions could also include a link to the CVS cross
> >>reference eventually, where we could give a "hint" that a revision comes
> >>from another tree.
> > I'm not sure I like that idea. I think the commit emails are already
> > too messy with the http:// links to all the diffs. Personally when
> > ever I look at pervious revision history I use cvs on the command
> > line. How many people use the http:// links in these commit emails ?
> > Perhaps we could remove them.
> I know I do; because I miss Perforce's ability to stick a small diff of
> the changes into the change log -- this is why we originally started
> using URLs. They are quite useful, atleast to me and people reviewing
> changes can just click URLs instead of going through the rigmarole of
> doing command-line based diffs.
> I would suggest that we retain the http links.
Perhaps two types of commit mailing lists are needed ? At this point
it doesn't matter a lot to me personally as I only read replies to
commit mails because I look at the commit changes via command line
Steven David Rhodus
<drhodus at xxxxxxxxxxx>
More information about the Commits