Hash: SHA1

yuppie wrote:
> Hi Tres!
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> Am 30.06.2010, 15:09 Uhr, schrieb Tres 
>>> Seaver<tseaver-npldouuzvjyamjb+lgu...@public.gmane.org>:
>>>> As a general rule, I would actually prefer that we strip out the
>>>> keywords currently in the code -- they are CVS-era fossils which no
>>>> longer add any value in the SVN + eggs world.
> Why are they "CVS-era fossils"? What special value did they add in the 
> CVS world?

"Back in the day", I would use those markers to figure out how badly a
previous developer had messed up their hacked-up Zope install:  often,
Zope was running from an unreleased CVS snapshot from the trunk,
sometimes with local changes.  I could use the Id tag for such a file to
reconstruct what they had hacked (CVS checkouts lacked enough metadata
about the individual files in the checkout to allow easy checking for

svn checkouts actually have the original version of the file present,
and have a much more coherent story about revision history:  the
checkout itself has a revision and log, rather than only individual
files as under CVS.

> 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.

Egg releases carry the release metadata with them.  In addition, in the
egg-based world, almost nobody is running a local checkout of Zope on a
production server any more.

>> Not only redundant to the data available in 'svn log' / 'svn info',
> 'svn log' and 'svn info' are not available inside released eggs.

But the version of the release is.

>> but
>> actively harmful:  keyword expansion makes merging branches / applying
>> patches harder.
> I guess the reason this causes problems for you is related to your 
> attempts to use Bazaar instead of Subversion.

No:  I've noticed this most lately when trying to apply patches from bug

> I'm fine with removing the Id keywords if it makes the transition to 
> Bazaar easier, but I don't think this is related to the the transition 
> from CVS to Subversion.

I find the keywords pointless in our current development model.

>> I would say that we should be removing the keywords
>> themselves from source code opportunistically;  I don't really care
>> about the property itself.
> 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.

They are gone in the ZTK already.

- --
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to