On Sunday, 9 September 2018 at 04:37:48 UTC, Josphe Brigmo wrote:
If git would automatically do the dates then one could download
the source code. Git would be the central repository and if one
wanted an offline version that had enough info in it such as
the data a change was made, who changed it, the date the file
was generated etc, then it would be better than having nothing.
[...]
The thing is, none of this shit hurts anything. Comments don't
change programs so really it is just an issue about bloat and
rot. The rot is covered by git hub automatically generating all
the info(then it becomes no different than the problem of
versioning with everything, want an update, just download it
from git). The bloat is minimum and the bloat is precisely
valid information(it's not like it is gibberish).
I think perhaps you are laboring under a severe misunderstanding
of what git is, and how git and Github actually work.
Git is a version control system. It records historical snapshots
("commits") of a project, along with metadata like date and
author, and lets you navigate between different versions. The
collection of data and metadata saved by git for a particular
project is called a "git repository".
Github is a website for hosting git repositories. When you
download the dmd source code from Github using `git clone`, you
receive a complete copy of the entire history of dmd, including
both the commits themselves and the metadata associated with them.
That's why there's no need to add comments--all the data you want
is already there, not just on Github, but in *every single*
offline copy. When we say "just use git," we don't mean "use
Github, the website," we mean "use git, the version control
system, to view the historical information *in your local copy*".
