Re: revision/version numbers

[Jamie Wellnitz]

Well "cvs up -kk -j <branch-tag-1> -j <branch-tag-2>" seems to work
okay for me to avoid problems with merging the keywords (I think we've
only used $Id$, though).

-- Jamie Wellnitz

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:05:49AM -0500, Donald Sharp wrote:
> Ick.  I hate keyword expansions.  The minute you ever merge
> between branches you have to deal with those keywords.
> 
> donald
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +0100, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:53:33PM -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
> > 
> > > If you are not too worried a few odd merge conflicts, you could always 
> > > add the
> > > $Revision$ or $Id$ keywords to a comment in your source code and the 
> > > write 
> > > the canonical 5 lines of Perl to snag the revision number from the file. 
> > > Or 
> > > use ident (which is part of RCS) to do that for you.
> > 
> > Sorry for coming to this discussion this late, but IMHO, using the "RCS
> > way" (ident with $Id$ in the source code *and* the binary) seems to me
> > to be the best solution for what Katherine needs.
> > 
> > 'ident'ing the resulting binary gives you exactly what you need, the
> > list of all revisions of the sources used to compile that binary.
> > 
> > Spiro.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Info-cvs mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs