Hi James, V ?t, 08. 07. 2008 v 15:55, James Carlson p??e: > Milan Jurik writes: > > Because many modules in ON (and not only in ON) are in one file, it's > > usefull in many cases. > > As many or more are not. >
Yes, of course :-) > > Yes, it's not reliable but it's better than > > nothing. So, if we are removing %I%, we should find some better, generic > > mechanism for it. > > It sounds like we're in violent agreement that something better is > needed. The disagreement seems to be that you feel that %I% is > sufficient in some cases, particularly ones that are interesting to > you (;-}), while others of us feel that it never was a good answer. > As RPE I met cases where it helped (and none was misleading), so I don't like the ideas like: a) manual handling b) disbanding it completly without replacement But yes, we are in agreement that we need something better and not ignoring it :-) > Rather than repeating past blunders, I'd like to see us do better. In > any event, you can always replicate these past mistakes on your own by > typing "v1.1" explicitly in your code, and bumping the number on each > push. I don't think that's the right strategy at all, and I'd > strongly argue against it being applied as any sort of guideline or > standard for others to follow, but if it floats your boat, and you > can't wait for a better answer, go for it. > I would say it in my way - based on my position I must follow development decisions and live with them ;-) I could hack it to the module by some Makefile, but it will change revision in every build, not good for new packaging system I think. Best regards, Milan
