Suffering from CVS mindset

[Haszlakiewicz, Eric]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: mercurial-bounces at selenic.com
[mailto:mercurial-bounces at selenic.com]
>
>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?

One thing that might be confusing you is that mercurial has a (IMO, very
annoying) default of "whole repository" for various commands, rather
than the more intuitive "current directory".  That means that if you're
working in some directory and you only want to commit the stuff from
there you need to run:
  hg commit .
with the current directory explicitly specified.  Things like "hg log"
do the same thing, as does "hg diff" (except there it's even more of a
pain, b/c hg creates "fake" paths in the diff output), etc....

I had to write a wrapper script to try to fix some of this.

>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.

The default log output sucks.  The built-in "verbose" log output isn't
much better (e.g. it lists files, but w/o any indication of what
happened to each, and all on one line so it's impossible to parse
individual file names).  Theoretically, there's a way to tweak it to do
things like list the changed files in a way that subversion might
(which, IMO, is much more useful and readable), but I was never able to
get it to work quite right.

eric