Re: $Log$ in source files

Thanks very much. SVN seems to be a lot faster. So requesting the history just in time is a reasonable alternative. -Manfred On 5/11/05, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, it's done... sorry Manfred... if it's any consolation, it was > painful for me too - but only due to the repetitiv

Re: $Log$ in source files

Marathon Man (LOL) Thanks for the sacrifice. Don't bother with rerunning the javadoc. I will do that within the next day or so. Hopefully I will also be able to automate everything and we can have the website updated continuously. Also I will take a look at the timestamp suggestion made earlie

Re: $Log$ in source files

;) well, what are you the marathon man for if not for that... regards, Martin On 5/11/05, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, it's done... sorry Manfred... if it's any consolation, it was > painful for me too - but only due to the repetitive-stress injury > suffered by pressing CTRL-Y

Re: $Log$ in source files

OK, it's done... sorry Manfred... if it's any consolation, it was painful for me too - but only due to the repetitive-stress injury suffered by pressing CTRL-Y seven million times... Manfred Geiler wrote: Oliver, I fear you are right. Here is my sad +1 for removing $Log$ -Manfred

Re: $Log$ in source files

Oliver, I fear you are right. Here is my sad +1 for removing $Log$ -Manfred 2005/5/11, Oliver Rossmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 for removing the $Log$ stuff. There is no support for the Log (or a > similar) keyword in subversion so I suppose it's better to remove the > log entries from the

Re: $Log$ in source files

+1 for removing the $Log$ stuff. There is no support for the Log (or a similar) keyword in subversion so I suppose it's better to remove the log entries from the source files as they won't get any updates. As Sean said: all the information is in the svn logs anyway, no need from my POV to maint

Re: $Log$ in source files

+1 from me too, they make the javadocs look terrible. Sean Schofield wrote: +1 for removing them. Subversion (and CVS) keeps the same history and they just clutter up the source code and documentation. On 5/9/05, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SVN experts, is there really no alternat

Re: $Log$ in source files

+1 for removing them. Subversion (and CVS) keeps the same history and they just clutter up the source code and documentation. On 5/9/05, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SVN experts, is there really no alternative or backward compatibility > solution? > :-( > -Manfred > > 2005/5/8,

Re: $Log$ in source files

SVN experts, is there really no alternative or backward compatibility solution? :-( -Manfred 2005/5/8, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yes, I found that nice too :-( > > > On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:27 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote: > oh yes... > > what a pity, I liked that small tid

Re: $Log$ in source files

Yes, I found that nice too :-( On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:27 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote: oh yes... what a pity, I liked that small tidbit of information! regards, Martin On 5/8/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subversion doesn't support the $Log$ : > http://subversion.

Re: $Log$ in source files

oh yes... what a pity, I liked that small tidbit of information! regards, Martin On 5/8/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subversion doesn't support the $Log$ : > http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#log-in-source > > As those $Log$ sections will be outdated, I think we shou

$Log$ in source files

Subversion doesn't support the $Log$ : http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#log-in-source As those $Log$ sections will be outdated, I think we should start removing them. Any thoughts ?