[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Keyword hash and Properties as keyword

From: Garrett Rooney <rooneg_at_electricjellyfish.net>
Date: 2004-03-21 03:34:10 CET

On Mar 20, 2004, at 9:25 PM, John Peacock wrote:

> Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> I mean I'm all for providing some kind of customization of keywords,
>> but I always assumed such customization would either be aliasing one
>> keyword to a new name (i.e. $Id$ -> $FreeBSD$ or something like
>> that), or providing a way to pick and chose the various bits of data
>> we already provide, so you could have a single keyword with both the
>> URL and the LastChangedRev or something...
>
> The problem with that is how to set it. There are no repository-wide
> configuration settings (currently) which could be used for that
> purpose. There is hardly any point doing a compile-time
> configuration. In the comments for subst.c, I point out exactly where
> to check any repository-wide configurations to create new custom
> keywords (once those exist).

Oh, I recognize that...

>> Just being able to plug in arbitrary properties doesn't seem all that
>> appealing to me, but you've put a fair amount of work into it, so I
>> assume there's something I'm missing...
>
> At the moment, it's not all that useful, I'll admit. Once we have
> inheritable properties, you could set a property called VERSION at the
> top of the directory tree, and all files requiring a version property
> would be automatically populated with that keyword.

Here's the thing. We haven't actually said we're going to have
inheritable properties, at least not that I'm aware of. Sure, I think
it would be useful, but since nobody is hacking on it right now, and we
don't seem to know for sure if they will in the future, adding this
feature now seems premature.

I'm all for adding extra features related to keywords, but if they
require either repository based config options on one side or
inheritable properties on the other, I'd much rather see those features
happen first, rather than adding features that are only going to be
really useful someday in the future when we add these other features.
I mean what if inheritable properties never materialize? Then we get
to support a less than entirely useful feature until the end of time,
which doesn't seem like the best way to go forward to me.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 21 03:34:34 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.