Hi Doug, I'll just say that the "Why you don't need it" page (which I had read) doesn't cover the legitimate (and I suspect more common than you think) use-case of single script files. The other place I think I need this functionality is to print version information in LaTeX documents that I distribute as pdfs to others. I don't have makefiles for these either. I'm not arguing that the changeset hash form is a problem, just that it should be possible for any version control system to do keyword expansion to access a unique ID from within the controlled file. When I first read the "Why you don't need it" page, it gave the impression that Mercurial would not do keyword expansion at all, unless I was willing to install the keyword.py script on that page. I almost decided at that point that I needed to use svn or Git in preference, until I discovered elsewhere that the keyword expansion extension is now packaged with current distributions - I think the "Why you don't need it" should mention this. In summary, I'm really just arguing that enabling this functionality needs to be easy to do.
Gary Douglas Philips wrote: <snip> >> My use case for using this is that I have a single Python script that >> I'm developing and deploying onto another machine. I need to ensure >> that I can track the script output against the version number so I >> want the script to have access to its Revision info and also to be >> able to look at the script to see what its version is. Doing this >> without RCS-style keywords are perfect for this. > > > See the "Why you don't need it" part of: > http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/KeywordPlan > > When my group at work first converted over to Mercurial from CVS, > everyone thought they needed that too. > It took a while for them to adjust to the changeset hash form of unique > identification. Now we print out the repo's changeset id for the version > tag. > Our test logs will either use the hg id if hg is installed and we're > running from the repo, or it will use the special file that mercurial > puts into archives to identify which version was archived. > > I think "a repo of one file" is so rare that putting keyword expansion > sections into the Mercurial.ini file for it is a mistake; it could > easily be misconstrued as an endorsement of a practice which Mercurial > itself recommends against. > > --Doug -- Gary Ruben Postgraduate student School of Physics, Monash University e. gary.ru...@sci.monash.edu.au ph. +61 3 99020766 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list Tortoisehg-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
