Re: A couple of things that I think should be in byte bytecode meta comments

[Rocky Bernstein]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Rocky Bernstein <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:55:06 -0500
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> That there is also a SHA of  the text. If the text in any of those 60 files is identical it doesn't matter for purposes
> of debugging and error location determination which one
> in the set you decide to call the source.

If there's a SHA, why do we also need a file name?

>  I'm saying that the minuscule amount of times it will work will drown
>  in the sea of times it won't.  Worse, when it "doesn't work", it will
>  many times produce a false alarm: the file name is different, but the
>  contents was identical.
>
> If that's the case, then how is this different than what we have now?

If it isn't different, why add the recording of file names?  It does
nothing to improve the situation.

 

Path names give you good places to start looking for the file.

And often they can quickly give information as to what's up, e.g. I am running  from the stable or development branch. Or running from an Ubuntu build or a source-code build.