Re: [lwip-users] Lots of RAM

[Andrew Lentvorski]

Frédéric BERNON wrote:
> I'm agree with Jonathan & Simon (but I think we should add $date$ and 
> $revision$ CVS keyword, is there any objections to add them ?).

I object.  Strenuously.

It's already tough enough to mesh the fairly unusual organization of the 
lwip code with other projects as well as track upstream changes.  Adding 
CVS keywords is going to make diffing unnecessarily annoying.  If you 
must, at least put them at the *bottom* of the file.

The source code is your gold standard.  Your repository is where all the 
metadata for you source code goes.  The two should not meet.

The whole "CVS keyword" problem is why you need weird "Oh, leave this 
file alone" flags so that CVS doesn't do keyword interpolation (want to 
check in a tar file?  oops.  Have a script that looks for CVS keywords? 
 Oops.)

There are lots of CVS annotation tools that exist.  Most of them are 
*far* more informative than any meager amount of information a CVS 
keyword could convey.

The correct answer to this is either A) use/learn how to use a better 
editor/IDE/whatever for computer work or B) use a better 
prettyprinter/CVS browser/etc. for hardcopy/web display.

The wrong answer is modifying the checked in code.

If the problem, however, is: "I can't do CVS operations when offline." 
then the solution is to upgrade to a better source control system.

This objection comes from the fact that I actually check out lwip from 
CVS and then check it right back into my mercurial repository (mercurial 
is much nicer when trying to merge upstream changes than CVS).  I can 
think of several things that will likely break if keywords get added to 
the mix.

-a