On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 23.04.2013 16:29, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > > Guten Tag Charles Gallo, > > am Dienstag, 23. April 2013 um 14:22 schrieben Sie: > > > >> Blame/annotate does exactly what I want, but the client (mumble > >> mumble) wants the info in the actual source code file as comments! I > >> explained that all the info is in blame/SVN, but they actually said > >> "the auditors won't see the repository, just the source, and they > >> want to be able to see what changed and by whom". That's why I'm not > >> allowed to delete code, only comment out. Sigh > > Maybe you should try a different approach: Why do the auditors don't > > have or want access to the repo? May read-only copy of the repo to > > access offline a solution? > > You clearly have never had to deal with the more Neanderthal species of > auditor who believe meaningful technological advance stopped about 200 > years before Gutenberg. > > -- Brane > I have. The key is to get to the auditor, themselves, not the people who interpret what the auditor told the person who took the specs for the person who managed the person who wrote the gant chart for the person the auditor reported person to who interpreted it for your boss. Etc., etc., etc. It's very helpful to speak directly to the person who has to do the audit, and find out what *they* can handle directly. They're often quite reasonable and willing to cooperate in setting up a more efficient transfer of knowledge. It's often the layers in between that make things..... strange.
