[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lwip-users] Lots of RAM

From: Timmy Brolin
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Lots of RAM
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:51:02 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

I agree.
At work we have all the version history information in the repository. Nothing in the source files. There are however a few exceptions when version information in soruce files can be useful. When we release source code externally, our external partners/customers obviously do not have access to our internal repository, so we add version information at the top of each file in the release. I guess it would be possible to do something similar with lwip. Keep the source files clean in the repositoy, but add version information to the source files in the tarball releases? That way developers who use the repository don't have to put up wiht the version nonsense at the top of each file, and people who prefer to get their sourcecode from the release tarballs get some version inormation in their files.


Andrew Lentvorski wrote:

Frédéric BERNON wrote:

I'm agree with Jonathan & Simon (but I think we should add $date$ and $revision$ CVS keyword, is there any objections to add them ?).

I object.  Strenuously.

It's already tough enough to mesh the fairly unusual organization of the lwip code with other projects as well as track upstream changes. Adding CVS keywords is going to make diffing unnecessarily annoying. If you must, at least put them at the *bottom* of the file.

The source code is your gold standard. Your repository is where all the metadata for you source code goes. The two should not meet.

The whole "CVS keyword" problem is why you need weird "Oh, leave this file alone" flags so that CVS doesn't do keyword interpolation (want to check in a tar file? oops. Have a script that looks for CVS keywords? Oops.)

There are lots of CVS annotation tools that exist. Most of them are *far* more informative than any meager amount of information a CVS keyword could convey.

The correct answer to this is either A) use/learn how to use a better editor/IDE/whatever for computer work or B) use a better prettyprinter/CVS browser/etc. for hardcopy/web display.

The wrong answer is modifying the checked in code.

If the problem, however, is: "I can't do CVS operations when offline." then the solution is to upgrade to a better source control system.

This objection comes from the fact that I actually check out lwip from CVS and then check it right back into my mercurial repository (mercurial is much nicer when trying to merge upstream changes than CVS). I can think of several things that will likely break if keywords get added to the mix.


lwip-users mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]