William Uther <will+@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
> If I remember correctly, this has come up before. The issue is svn supports
> mixed revision working copies (again, IIRC). You cannot guarantee that the
> value in any file is up to date for any other file in the working copy. If
> you add this keyword in the file revision.h, and then 'svn up' a dir that
> doesn't contain revision.h, then revision.h will not be updated and will be
> contain incorrect information.
I think that we've all agreed that we don't want to put the
working-rev into our Subversion's *own* svn_version.h header. But I
don't think anyone is particularly against the creation of a
$WorkingRev$ keyword.
We don't want to use this technique in our own header because it might
lead to a lot of confusion: first, as you say, there's the
possibility of a mixed-rev working copy. But then also, what if
somebody checks out the latest fs-convert-2092 branch from HEAD?
Well, then you'll have a "2092 branch binary" that claims to be at
revision 2805 or something... big confusion.
But hey, if others want to use a $WorkingRev$ keyword for whatever
reason, then I'm +0 on adding that feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 31 18:50:43 2002