I think this is another one of *those* arguments.
It depends on what kind of coding you're doing. If you're trying to
track down bugs that recently appeared, then, sure, you want easy access
to who changed what and when. If you're adding features then all you
need is an idea of who the primary maintainers are.
My main concern is that you end up with 10 lines of source in a 100 line
file and it takes some searching to actually find it. Signal-to-noise
ratio.
"cvs log Foo.java" is not difficult.
On the other hand, if you're working while not being connected to the
repository then it would be handy to have this information locally. One
solution to this is to keep a local copy of the repository, although
that's probably not entirely satisfactory.
Another option is to put the logs in a separate file that you can
checkout if you want them. Exactly how to achieve that is one for the
CVS gurus, but I am sure it's possible (probably in a similar way to the
mailing of the commits to this list).
Toby.
marc fleury wrote:
>
> well the point is that it would be in the source files.
>
> If I am working on some source I want to know the changes at once.
>
> $Log$ provides that right?
>
> marc
>
> |We already keep track of this in CVS.
> |
> |The question is: Should we duplicate
> |this in the source files?
> |
> |I don't think it's a good idea when
> |we already have this information in
> |CVS.
