Re: Suggested new feature for ci

[Keith Thompson]

On Fri 10-11-12 05:19, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> () Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:45:47 -0800
> 
>    On 11/09/10 03:02, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> 
>    > Yeah, that's in the plans for 5.9, along w/ some new commands.
> 
>    Ah, OK, in that case I suggest that the -m problem be solved then.
> 
> On second thought, i think rejecting empty log messages is a good
> idea; we should not change that.  I'll expand on this in the docs.

Why?

For the record, I disagree.  Certainly descriptive log messages
are usually a good thing, but there are a lot of times when I want
to check something in without having to say anything about it.
This is particularly true when ci is invoked automatically rather
than manually.

If there's no syntax for specifying an empty log message on the
command line, I'll just continue using "ci ... < /dev/null", or maybe
"ci -m. ...".

And then there's "cvs checkin -m ''".  Certainly RCS doesn't *have*
to be completely compatible with CVS (and in many ways it can't be),
but I don't think making (or rather keeping) RCS different in this
particular way doesn't seem useful.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) address@hidden  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"