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

help me show others that there are valid reasons for not supporting a $log$ keyword!

From: Steve Povilaitis <stevepov_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:32:57 -0400

Most exalted ones,

Our program management is clamoring for including a revision history like
the old cvs $log$ keyword at the beginning of every file. I know there are
good reasons for not supporting a $log$ keyword or even the idea of
including a running log in the file, but if I'm not able to make a case for
abandoning the idea, I'm going to be forced into writing some sort of kludgy
script to do just that. I've searched previous posts explaining why this is
a bad idea and this is my understanding of some of the key points:

1. It's dumb to include version history in the file since this is meta-data
that is implicitly part of the versioning system, and there are better ways
of using subversion to get this data in much more understandable/useful
2. Having a large block of text at the front of the file is unwieldy and
confuses external diff tools.
3. It messes up binary files
4. Possible merge conflicts

What else folks?

Also, for every tagged release we do for the customer they're going to want
an export of the source with the revision log for each file appended to the
beginning of the file. Have any of you had to do something along those lines
and would you mind sharing how you accomplished it?


Received on 2008-09-16 15:33:21 CEST

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

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