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
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users