Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> > Feedback welcome.
>
> I noticed that CVS reports this as part of the version logs:
>
> date: 2000/09/13 05:49:30; author: cvs; state: Exp; lines: +19 -19
Yup: not sure how to orchestrate logging in to the server as different usernames,
or su'ing to be different users. Suggestions welcome.
> This sorta means that 'cvs annotate' is kinda useless since this
> 'cvs' dude is doing all of the patching. ;-)
He's a busy guy ;-).
> By comparison, here's what we have in the Perforce logs. Jarkko
> and Sarathy do a good job of including the relevant mail headers
> in the logs, which are now in Barrie's CVS version.
>
> [ 7001] By: jhi on 2000/09/01 23:00:13
> [ 7000] By: jhi on 2000/09/01 22:36:01
> [ 6999] By: gsar on 2000/09/01 22:16:40
> [ 6998] By: jhi on 2000/09/01 22:14:16
>
> (It would be even nicer to see who actually wrote the patch if a single
> patch is being applied with each change, but that sounds like a lot of
> work.)
I thought that was the purpose of putting the relavent mail headers in there?
Or do you mean you want a tool to m// the mail header and add it to the above
report (which doesn't look like direct p4 output, is it a perl script cooking
the output?).
- Barrie
