[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MH-E commits
From: |
Bill Wohler |
Subject: |
Re: MH-E commits |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:51:59 -0800 |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden> 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.