Ming Kin Lai writes:
>
> The original discussion appeared to focus on the expansion of the $Log$
> keyword both in the file and as output by the "cvs annotate" command (under
> version 1.11.17); but I think other keywords such as $Id$ have the same
> problem.
They do. The bottom line is that
> The original discussion appeared to focus on the expansion of the $Log$
> keyword both in the file and as output by the "cvs annotate" command
(under
> version 1.11.17); but I think other keywords such as $Id$ have the same
> problem. I am running CVS version 1.11.6 on Solaris. After I commi
Ming Kin Lai wrote:
>
> This is to continue the discussion of the thread with the same subject that
> started on Dec 7, 2004.
> The original discussion appeared to focus on the expansion of the $Log$
> keyword both in the file and as output by the "cvs annotate" command (under
> version 1.11.17);
As a comparison, cvs diff considers the "source file" "modified" for the
keyword expansion. That is,
$ cvs diff -r 1.3 -1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -r1.3 -r1.2
1,2c1,2
< $Id: compiler.c,v 1.3 2005/07/12 03:10:28 mingl Exp $
< this is $Date: 2005/07/12 03:10:28 $
---
This is to continue the discussion of the thread with the same subject that
started on Dec 7, 2004.
The original discussion appeared to focus on the expansion of the $Log$
keyword both in the file and as output by the "cvs annotate" command (under
version 1.11.17); but I think other keywords suc
Todd, your tip about the python version of the script came good. Thanks.
Full responses are below but it's a bit academic now.
Now that I've got a changelog I'll take another look at whether we still
need the $Log$ keyword in our output.
Hugh
> http://www.cvsnt.org/pipermail/cvsnt/2003-Septemb
Hugh Gibson wrote:
>
> Thanks for your detailed reply, Todd.
>
> > I think that you will need to delete the first two lines for it to work
> > on an MS system.
>
> Yes, that's effectively what I did.
>
> > After deleting them I think that the ms system will queue off of the .pl
> > extension an
Thanks for your detailed reply, Todd.
> I think that you will need to delete the first two lines for it to work
> on an MS system.
Yes, that's effectively what I did.
> After deleting them I think that the ms system will queue off of the .pl
> extension and send the script to the perl interpret
Hugh Gibson wrote:
>
> > It is only the comments that you can get back better using `cvs log` or
> > cvs2cl.
>
> Thanks for the tip. I downloaded cvs2cl but have some problems with it -
> even with the latest Perl (running under Windows 2000) the second line had
> problems. I commented it out; no
> Why is it again you are using the $Log:$ for anything anyway, i.e.,
> what is your purpose for having Log in your files? (often times this
> group can come up with a much better way to get to the ends you desire.)
OK, good point. As manager of a team, I occasionally have needed (when
using VS
Hugh Gibson writes:
>
> The annotate output appears to be wrong for the output of the Log command.
> As far as I can tell, annotate is getting the header information for the
> version prior to the requested version. Strangely, the code after the
> header appears to be the latest version and is
Hugh Gibson wrote:
>
> > OTOH, it might be OK to modify the behaviour of the 'annotate' command
> > to mimic the expansion behaviour of the checkout/update command. If
> > someone were inclined to write such a patch ;=)
>
> That sounds the reasonable path. However, it doesn't explain why the
> ou
> OTOH, it might be OK to modify the behaviour of the 'annotate' command
> to mimic the expansion behaviour of the checkout/update command. If
> someone were inclined to write such a patch ;=)
That sounds the reasonable path. However, it doesn't explain why the
output of the log command is anno
Todd Denniston wrote:
> If I Recall Correctly, $Log:$ is expanded on checkout, so the last
> (chronological) log entry seen in a Log in a sandbox has not yet been
> checked into CVS.
> Therefore, the repository knows nothing about it, and can not
> annotate what
> to it does not exist.
I believe y
Hugh Gibson wrote:
>
> We're running CVS 1.11.17-1 (rpm).
>
> Our files have the $Log$ keyword in them.
>
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-cvs/2004-10/msg00149.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/cgi-bin/namazu.cgi?query=Log+keyword&submit=Search%21&idxname=info-cvs&max=20&result=normal&sor
We're running CVS 1.11.17-1 (rpm).
Our files have the $Log$ keyword in them.
The annotate output appears to be wrong for the output of the Log command.
As far as I can tell, annotate is getting the header information for the
version prior to the requested version. Strangely, the code after th
16 matches
Mail list logo
