On 27-Feb-05, at 12:54 PM, David J. Marcus wrote:
> The value of just seeing the latest values of these substituted
> keywords appears (at least to me) to have minimal vlaue. Just knowing
> who was last to change the file (and on what date) is essentially
> useless. I would still need to go into the revisions history to pick
> up the descriptive comments of all the changes (and if required dig
> deeper into the diff).. a lot of work to do for something that the
> Eclipse/CVS plugi-in does well.
All this information can be obtained from Svn "out of band".
>> Subversion does not support $Log$ and probably never will as the core
>> developers seem opposed to it.
> In all honesty, I'm very surprised. In our shop, all checked in code
> has to have a 'description' (the gist of the change) which we
> programmers find very useful when revisiting old code.
> I suspect that the 'core' developers don't like the $Log$ because it
> is not cumulatively substituted (as it is in CVS). Just seeing the
> last description is not anywhere as useful as seeing all of them in
> chronological order.
From what I've read (I think this is in the FAQ) they don't like it
*because* it is cumulatively substituted. I think they felt it was
better to move the commit history out of the file being controlled, and
on the face of it, they're probably right.
>> I am sure they might consider a
>> well-implemented patch. You can read the mailing list archives for
>> discussions on this.
> Thanks for the link, and for this very useful total repsonse to my
Received on Mon Feb 28 05:08:09 2005