--- "Thomas S. Urban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I understand that keywords expansion is > required for my kludge to > work, and that what I am doing is a definitely a > kludge.
If you're going this route, I would suggest your commitinfo script also check for the existence of RCS keywords within the files. > If this > undocumented feature is ever removed, I will have to > reevaluate what I'm > doing. If this ever does change, I would request > that in addition to > fixing what information is sent back to the client > (diff versus whole > file), the developers should also remove the > capability to modify the > file that gets checked in - give the commitinfo > script a temporary copy > of each file that isn't used to modify the rcs file. > Either that or > properly support and docuemnt the feature ;). I think such enforcement would require too much overhead. Also, even if such a feature were supported, it shouldn't be used since resolving conflicts due to mass changes from beautification is an extremely tedious task. The way I've handled such things in the past was to serialize development while mass beautification occurred. Still, this doesn't resolve problems that may occur from branches. OTOH, mass beautification should only be an initial cost. Projects will need to weigh out the initial cost of beautification versus long-term costs of not beautifying. A project may also choose to amortize the beautification, but I haven't analyzed the pro's and con's of doing so. Noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards� http://movies.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
