> On Apr 23, 2013, at 15:56, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Ryan Schmidt wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 01:45:49 -0500: > >> 3. If you want the actual source code in the repository to contain > >> these comments, then you're talking about several scripts: one that > >> the developers must invoke in place of "svn commit" to commit their > >> work, which transforms their files in the ways you desire before > >> committing them, and another that runs as a pre-commit hook and > >> verifies that the incoming commit conforms to these requirements (and > >> rejects the commit if not). > > > > Or, more simply, developers run 'commit' normally and a post-commit > > hook appends the blame-comments. > > Appends the blame-comments to what? Certainly not to the file in the > repository because by post-commit time the commit is already finalized. And > you wouldn't want to modify the transaction in the pre-commit hook because > that would screw up working copies. Are you suggesting the server should make > a second commit after every commit to add the blame-comments? That would > totally mess up normal use of "svn blame", among the other usual problems. >
I agree. It seems to me that a CI build process should be generating BLAME audit documents for the auditors that could be checked into another repository. The devs should OWN the source, not the auditors! BOb
