Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 7/1/10 11:37 , yuppie wrote:
>> Why are they "CVS-era fossils"? What special value did they add in the
>> CVS world?
>> I always thought we use the Id keyword because CVS or SVN metadata is
>> not always available. In tarball or egg releases that kind of metadata
>> is missing.
> FWIW I have never felt a need for that information inside a tarball or
> egg, and agree with Tres that they make generating diffs between trees
> needlessly difficult.
I don't want to discuss the pros and cons. I'm fine with changing the
policy. My point is that:
1.) We did have a policy to add Id keywords.
2.) The old policy is not obviously out-dated, and the term "CVS-era
fossil" doesn't make it more obvious.
3.) In a case like that a transparent decision and a clear announcement
are necessary to avoid discussions like this one and to make sure
everybody pulls in the same direction.
>> I would prefer if you would propose that on the zope-dev list. It
>> doesn't make sense to remove them in CMF and to keep them in ZTK or Zope
>> headers. And it doesn't make sense if just a few people remove them in a
>> few places and other people follow the old policy.
> I thought they already disappeared from most places by now.
Most Python files in Zope 2 and Zope 2 Products (e.g. GenericSetup, CMF,
PAS) use the Id keyword. But also z3c packages like z3c.form.
> I'm can't
> remember seeing them for newly added code either.
Recently there has not been added much new code in the Zope repository.
But here are two examples from the last few days:
And nobody who touches code and makes other cleanups seems to remove Id
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests