Re: MH-E commits

[Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

> I thought we considered the RCS/CVS keywords a pest because they tend to 
> generate gratuitous changes like the one above.  Is it possible to get 
> rid of them (I thought we did that for all bundled packages)?

  I was not aware of that convention. It certainly isn't in the Emacs
  Lisp Coding Conventions. Where is this documented?

  I include the RCS keyword because it adds a lot of useful information.
  The gratuitous diffs are pesky indeed. However, it would be better to
  fix the tools so that these diffs aren't generated.

  Nonetheless, I notice that most (but not all) of the lisp packages do
  not have the Id keyword, so I'll go with the flow and remove the
  keywords from the MH-E package.

  Is this important enough to take the time to punch out a patch release
  now, or can it wait a month until our next regular release?

--
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.