<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 2014-04-10 02:52, Chris Frey wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20140410065258.GA11159@foursquare.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">... it was a specific bugfix, and there is nothing in git to help me find that except explicit and consistent
commit messages that I can search on.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<big>As a new Git user (and budding enthusiast) I am following this
thread with interest.<br>
<br>
IMO The quoted comment above makes the case for:<br>
a) frequent commits - often isolated to a given issue and<br>
b) explicit and consistent commit messages<br>
<br>
This might suggest the use of an additional tool, a bug tracking tool,
Bugzilla perhaps.<br>
<br>
I do realize that this adds to the administration overhead and this
brings me back an comment I offered earlier.</big><br>
<br>
<big>IMO For the administration angle, The [overhead] [ <tt>...</tt> ]
is an
evil, maybe even a necessary evil from a 'best practices' point of view.</big><br>
<big><br>
FWIW I have been using a text file as a log file and have, when I
remember, logging git activity to this log file, for example (using
bash):<br>
</big><big><tt>$ git status >> mygitlog.txt <br>
</tt></big><big><tt>$ git commit -am "this is a message to be
associated with the commit" >> mygitlog.txt<br>
</tt><br>
Regards<br>
JohnJ</big><br>
</body>
</html>