David Brown wrote:
I'm beginning to feel that _any_ process that involves putting history data
somewhere in the source tree is just an indicator of a missing feature from
a revision control system. Keyword expansion just indicates that the
system either doesn't keep track of file versions very well, or isn't
distributed. If the revision control system is distributed, and everyone
who has the source, has the revision information, then they aren't needed.
Got it in one. Keyword expansion is so that you can work on the file
and know what version it is even when you can't query the revision
control system.
Another is a "ChangeLog" file. The need to write history information into
a file suggests that the history in the revision control system either
isn't very good, or isn't accessible.
Agreed.
Even finding commented-out code suggests that the programmer thought it
would be too hard to find or retrieve that code later from the revision
control system.
Do not necessarily agree.
This is a "train of thought" issue.
Commented out code serves as a reminder when I am doing big changes.
The commented area generally gets a "Delete after you have fixed the foo
section" or "Remember to reenable after you have fixed the bar
subsystem" type comment.
If I rely on the DVCS to handle this, *I* will forget about the code,
not the DVCS.
BTW, something like "NEWS" which summarizes a bunch of changes in a release
is still useful.
Yes. I don't like the Changelog files anyhow because I can never search
the bloody things since I never know what format they are in.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
