[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The hated $Log$ keyword

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: The hated $Log$ keyword
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:13:40 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On , July 7, 2001 at 18:22:09 (+0100), James Youngman wrote:
> Subject: Re: The hated $Log$ keyword
> What if there was a keyword like $Log$ but which expanded to the
> entire log history (with comment leaders)?   This would avoid the
> merge problem and surely cannot be too expensive to compute.

It would indeed avoid the merge problem (or at least reduce it)
... but it's *impossible* to compute in the presence of branches.
CVS doesn't keep around enough info to know which revisions of
which branches actually contributed to the rev in question.
(That's a problem that wants solving for other reasons, of
course, as has been discussed in the past.)

On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:49:30PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> RCS keywords are evilly implemented at best, and $Header, $Log, and a
> few similar are just totally evil from the get go.  Avoid them like the
> plague.

I thoroughly agree about $Log$, but:
  - what's evil about the rest?
  - why do you put $Header$ in the "totally evil" class, not
    merely evil?


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]