Scott M Stark wrote:
>
> Perhaps all can be satisfied if the cvs code contains the $Log$ trailer and
> we add a dist-src target to the build that strips out the cvs info to satisfy
> those who want a src without the cvs info.
How about if the CVS files don't contain $Log$ and there is a target
that appends the output of "cvs log" to a copy of each file?
Of course, everybody wants his or her preference to be the default.
The argument comes down to whether the commit log for a file is part of
that file in the same sense as the actual Java code and the comments. I
argue that it's not. Marc and Oleg argue that it is.
In my opinion, the history of changes made to a file is noise. What
matters is what the file contains now because that's what you need to
understand. If the history is needed in order to understand the code
then the code is too hard to understand. If there's something in the
history that is important for maintenance then it should be in a
comment.
And that's all I'm going to say about that. (These arguments are hard to
stay out of).
Toby.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oleg Nitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "jBoss Developer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] CVS update:
>jboss/src/main/org/jboss/ejbMethodInvocation.java
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > My 0.02 rubles:
> > I am with Marc: the number of lines or words is not an issue for us,
> > who uses to count file sizes in megabytes.
> > In my view a source file should be self-sufficient thing that doesn't
> > need any other entity.
> > Once I have sources I should have everything.
> > It's not a question about quality of one's Internet connection, etc.
> > This is about why I prefer Java to PowerBuilder.
> > This is rather about a philosophy of programming ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Oleg
