From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andre Spiegel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: deleting rcs keywords from emacs sources Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:45:08 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1080200708.749.486.camel@localhost> References: <4242667.1080067569994.JavaMail.root@tintin.london.ongenie.net> <20040323214737.GA21737@fencepost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1080201032 27921 80.91.224.253 (25 Mar 2004 07:50:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 25 08:50:25 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B6PdB-0007oL-00 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:50:25 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B6PdB-0001vc-00 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:50:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B6Pbt-0004NN-Fj for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:49:05 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B6Pb4-000457-JU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:48:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B6PZl-0003U3-N3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:47:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [193.113.160.16] (helo=mail.o2.co.uk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B6PYD-0002rs-Bv; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:45:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [217.235.30.111] (217.235.30.111) by mail.o2.co.uk (7.0.020) (authenticated as andre.spiegel@o2online.de) id 40557866003BA098; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:45:10 +0000 Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <20040323214737.GA21737@fencepost> X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:20876 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:20876 On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 22:47, Miles Bader wrote: > > I often send files back and forth, and frequently I need to decide what > > version I'm looking at, with the file being isolated from its version > > control history. > > Er, if you're making changes outside of CVS than the keyword info isn't > going to be very useful, is it? This has nothing to do with changes outside CVS. The scenario usually goes like this: Somebody reports a bug, I fix it. The user doesn't have CVS access, my fix is not readily backported into the version of the file he has, so I send him the entire current source file. Later, that person has another problem, and reports it along with the version number of the file I sent him. Without version numbers in the files, this is very difficult, if not impossible to keep track of. Now, *if* changes outside of CVS happen, then the version numbers in the file at least give you a clear indication what CVS version this file was based on, and then it's trivial to find out what these changes were, relative to the corresponding CVS version. This is very difficult to find out if you have no idea what CVS version the file was based on. I could go on and on with scenarios that are not Emacs-related, but where version numbers also play an important role. For example, people sometimes print files on paper to carry into a review meeting. Files get deployed to machines with no access to the version control system etc. etc. > > I find it completely natural, even essential that a file is stamped with the > > version it contains, the stamp being a part of the actual contents of the > > file. > > I've seen others say this too, and I suspect that's a major reason people use > rcs keywords -- it gives them warm fuzzies. I think the scenarios above show the contrary. > These keywords are the sort of thing that may seem like a great idea at > first, but which come back to haunt you later (as we now see :-) I used to think that the keywords, being a huge benefit for myself, did not cause any trouble elsewhere. But if they really do, then the cost vs. the benefit needs to be weighed of course. As it appears that several people are suffering trouble, I won't insist on my objections. In the general case (i.e. outside Emacs development), I firmly believe that this needs to be handled properly, because surely, many projects and shops will insist on having such a feature. If it takes effort to reconcile this with merging etc., so be it. A feature is not bad just because it is non-trivial to implement.