Suffering from CVS mindset

[Harry Putnam]

New hg user alert!

Maybe I'm just suffering from a lingering CVS mindset, but I'm
starting to see some problems with commits.

The trial hg repo I'm working with covers a `projects' area where the
structure is along the lines of a directory with shell script
experiments, another with perl script experiments, backup
experimentation.

And onward... just all the little tinkering I do.

If I modify a number of files in the repo, they may not, and probably
will not have a common thread.  More likely disparate changes not
related.

Now when I commit some of this, how do I keep up with the changes in
the log I write.  Is it up to me to manually list the files and tell
what I changed or why?

Then when I want to see the log about an individual file in the
future, the commit log won't have much usefull info unless I've
written out detailed changes, file names and etc.

Should I have made a separate commit for every file like cvs?

I'm not getting with the idea of commits being repo wide.  Not seeing
how changes to files are tracked individually... or how to record, or
review that process.

The kind of baloney I see in the log looks nearly useless.

  changeset:   6:317286010708
  tag:         tip
  user:        reader   <reader at newsguy.com
  date:        Sat Apr 10 15:56:16 2010 -0500
  summary:     I made changes

Doesn't even tell which files were changed, which removed etc etc
unless I detail every move I made. And include diffs in the log,  I
won't know poop from looking at the log.

I'm thinking experienced users are doing something very different from
what I'm doing.