On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Hojtsy Gabor wrote:
> As I wrote down in my last long letter (titled:
> "Re: [PHP-DOC] Revision longer example"), we can
> think of the Revision comments as a splitup of
> translators and the script generated revheck.html
> as a HTML version of Translators with much extra
> stuff in it.
Yep, I received that long letter after writing my response. Very clear
explanation of the system.
> So this is just a renewal of the current system we
> have with some extra convinient features added.
>
> As I heard, we can make the revcheck.php script
> run on every commit, so the table can be autogenerated
> on every commit, and there would be no need to run
> it manually in most of the cases.
Otherwise a good idea, but that would be also forcing everyone to the new
system... would it be OK if we just require the people using revision
comments system to also run a script that updates Translators too and
commit both ones?
Besides, I think that over the time most people just switch to use
revision comments, because the idea really is a good one, and this
problem slowly fades away. So, if we at some time in the future realize
that over 90% commits are using revision tags, we can come to the
conclusion that the revision comments system has won. Pure
survival-of-the-fittest game.
-- Jouni
