John Peacock wrote:
> I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this: Subversion has no way to
> permit updating keywords in otherwise unchanged files. That is "action at a
> distance" and is much worse than suggesting developers use their build system
Not now at least, which is why I made a proposal at all.
Regarding build systems, see below.
> The concept you are trying to shoehorn into Subversion, 'last commit for this
> WC', is _project_ meta-data in that it doesn't apply to any specific file but
> rather to all files.
I'm not trying to shoehorn it in, I'm trying to find out what's the
cleanest possible way to do it.
> As such, it is best handled outside of Subversion's
> keywords handling itself, which is completely _file_ oriented.
I'm well aware that $UpdateRev$ would not, from a purely technical
POV, be implemented in exactly the same way that all the current
Subversion keywords are.
That's what I can do for you here - tell you what users (not you,
John) really need and get your minds off of the technical details for
> Any given build system only needs a single methodology to handle expanding
> this value in whatever file needs to be expanded (an include file can be used
> in whatever files need the value in question so that there is only a single change
It's not that you're 100% wrong here, it's just that not every build
system supports the approach you have in mind. It's also that there's
considerable effort if you have a lot of different projects that each
has their own build system, as we do. We clearly disagree whether the
entire keyword is a good idea, so let's just agree to disagree and
spare the list for the same spam over and over again?
> > > keyword, the inevitable next question is "Why can't I get
> > > that file updated automatically in all files that have it?"
> > The answer to that question is hopefully the same in both cases.
> > "Files that you target with a 'svn' operation will be modified, others
> > we leave alone."
> $ svn ci -m 'This commit recursively targets all files below here'
> It's just not an acceptable performance penalty to potentially change every
> single file on the off chance that one of them needs keywords expanded.
I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Who ever talked about changing every file?
Only files with UpdateRev in their svn:keywords will get have
Please clarify your concern.
Greg Hudson covered some of the performance aspects, perhaps read his
postings if you have not already.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Oct 4 16:09:08 2005