Re: [lwip-users] Lots of RAM

[Timmy Brolin]

I agree.
At work we have all the version history information in the repository. 
Nothing in the source files.
There are however a few exceptions when version information in soruce 
files can be useful. When we release source code externally, our 
external partners/customers obviously do not have access to our internal 
repository, so we add version information at the top of each file in the 
release.
I guess it would be possible to do something similar with lwip. Keep the 
source files clean in the repositoy, but add version information to the 
source files in the tarball releases?
That way developers who use the repository don't have to put up wiht the 
version nonsense at the top of each file, and people who prefer to get 
their sourcecode from the release tarballs get some version inormation 
in their files.

/Timmy

Andrew Lentvorski wrote:

> Frédéric BERNON wrote:
>
> > I'm agree with Jonathan & Simon (but I think we should add $date$ and 
> > $revision$ CVS keyword, is there any objections to add them ?).
>
>
> I object.  Strenuously.
>
> It's already tough enough to mesh the fairly unusual organization of 
> the lwip code with other projects as well as track upstream changes.  
> Adding CVS keywords is going to make diffing unnecessarily annoying.  
> If you must, at least put them at the *bottom* of the file.
>
> The source code is your gold standard.  Your repository is where all 
> the metadata for you source code goes.  The two should not meet.
>
> The whole "CVS keyword" problem is why you need weird "Oh, leave this 
> file alone" flags so that CVS doesn't do keyword interpolation (want 
> to check in a tar file?  oops.  Have a script that looks for CVS 
> keywords?  Oops.)
>
> There are lots of CVS annotation tools that exist.  Most of them are 
> *far* more informative than any meager amount of information a CVS 
> keyword could convey.
>
> The correct answer to this is either A) use/learn how to use a better 
> editor/IDE/whatever for computer work or B) use a better 
> prettyprinter/CVS browser/etc. for hardcopy/web display.
>
> The wrong answer is modifying the checked in code.
>
> If the problem, however, is: "I can't do CVS operations when offline." 
> then the solution is to upgrade to a better source control system.
>
> This objection comes from the fact that I actually check out lwip from 
> CVS and then check it right back into my mercurial repository 
> (mercurial is much nicer when trying to merge upstream changes than 
> CVS).  I can think of several things that will likely break if 
> keywords get added to the mix.
>
> -a
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users