(no commit message)

diff --git a/doc/todo/Add_instructive_commit_messages_for_add__47__edit_pages.mdwn b/doc/todo/Add_instructive_commit_messages_for_add__47__edit_pages.mdwn
index c7438feb6b035ce7c0c17029d47ba45269e1abaa..571e1a6ebdf3baef74fdcf34f89040e2f078abc4 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/Add_instructive_commit_messages_for_add__47__edit_pages.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/Add_instructive_commit_messages_for_add__47__edit_pages.mdwn
@@ -9,10 +9,14 @@ Diff follows. --[[Daniel Andersson]]
 > itself and it would just be clutter to mention what file was changed,
 > since any reasonable interface will show the filename, or a link,
 > or some summary of what files were affected when showing a change.
 > itself and it would just be clutter to mention what file was changed,
 > since any reasonable interface will show the filename, or a link,
 > or some summary of what files were affected when showing a change.

-> 
+
+>> I use the Mercurial backend, and Mercurial doesn't allow empty commit messages, so if there were no message, it would default to "no message given" (hardcoded in `mercurial.pm`), which is also clutter, and non-descriptive at that. But I'm on board with your reasoning. It's a matter of taste (and somewhat backend), I guess. I might continue to locally use this patch (with the caveat below fixed when commit message is given), but I won't push for it to be included upstream. --[[Daniel Andersson]]
+

 > Also your patch stomps over any commit message that the user *does*
 > provide, so certianly cannot be applied as-is. --[[Joey]] 
 
 > Also your patch stomps over any commit message that the user *does*
 > provide, so certianly cannot be applied as-is. --[[Joey]] 
 

+>> Yes, "naive" was the word :-) . --[[Daniel Andersson]]
+

 [[!tag patch]]
 
 ---
 [[!tag patch]]
 
 ---