Re: suggest $Source$ as alias for $HeadURL$

[kf...@collab.net]

Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org> writes:
> A few days ago, the topic of supporting $Header$ came up on the list.
> While we're on the subject, I'd like to suggestion supporting
> $Source$ as an alias for $HeadURL$.  This would make it possible to
> use the same keywords for RCS, CVS, and Subversion it at least that
> additional case.
> 
> Just to be extra clear, I'm not suggesting this to ease migration; I'm
> suggesting it to make it possible to use the same set of templates for
> all three revision control systems.  There are still going to be some
> places where I will likely to continue to use CVS or RCS for some time
> to come, and $Source$ is the only header from the ones I regularly use
> that isn't supported by Subversion.
> 
> I know others are also interested in this: see issue 980.  I would
> have posted an issue, but 980 was closed as invalid, referencing 979
> which was closed as invalid suggesting that feature requests belonged
> on the dev mailing list.  But I decided to post here first anyway...
> Please let me know if there would have been a better way to bring this
> up. :-)

Thanks for doing the legwork before bring this up, that helps (I know
our ways of using the issue tracker vs the mailing lists are a bit
unusual, but it makes things easier for us in the long run).

There are arguments on both sides, of course, but I think the reason
we've not made a priority of completely compatible keyword-matching is
that our keyword values don't correspond to precisely the same
concepts anyway.  For example, the SVN URL and the CVS RCSPath are not
*quite* the same thing, although they aren't quite different things
either.

Every now and then someone proposes a particular new keyword,
sometimes for compatibility with other systems and sometimes not.  We
discuss it, and come to a conclusion in a totally ad hoc way :-), and
I have CC'd the dev@ list now so that the same thing can happen in
this case.

My personal opinion?  The differences between the two values are great
enough to justify not having a common keyword.  However, if the
majority of developers felt differently, I wouldn't try to veto it
either.  We'll see if anyone else weighs in.  If no one else does, it
just means they don't want to see a change to the status quo either.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: suggest $Source$ as alias for $HeadURL$

[Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org>]

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org> writes:
>> A few days ago, the topic of supporting $Header$ came up on the list.
>> While we're on the subject, I'd like to suggestion supporting
>> $Source$ as an alias for $HeadURL$.  This would make it possible to
>> use the same keywords for RCS, CVS, and Subversion it at least that
>> additional case.
>
> There are arguments on both sides, of course, but I think the reason
> we've not made a priority of completely compatible keyword-matching is
> that our keyword values don't correspond to precisely the same
> concepts anyway.  For example, the SVN URL and the CVS RCSPath are not
> *quite* the same thing, although they aren't quite different things
> either.

Granted.  Here's one way in which they are the same: I don't keep
/etc, /sbin, and so forth in subversion or CVS, but I do keep a
parallel tree with only changed files in it.  If I put a completely
customized script or configuration file on my system, I rely on
$Source$ (or $URL$) to notify the reader of where the authoritative,
controlled copy of that file actually lives.  $Source$ and $URL$ both
provide the functionality with equal effectiveness.  Of course, a
simple note in the file header stating that this is a controlled file
combined with a find or locate command would also serve that purpose.
Here's one way in which they differ: $Source$ with CVS gives you an
actual path to an actual file you could look at and do something with;
$HeadURL$ with Subversion does not.

I personally don't feel that strongly about it.  Reading arguments
about why keyword expansion is not the default have already made me
change some long-held ideas about keyword expansion.  Also, when
creating new files in subversion, since one has to already take an
extra step to enable keyword expansion, they can easily take an extra
step to change $Source$ to $URL$ if they get it wrong the first time.
For my specific case, a 10-line perl script, emacs keyboard macro, and
about 3 minutes were all it took me to make the change in my
/home/sysadmin area.

Anyway, thanks for considering this request.  It will be interesting
to see the outcome.  (Sorry for keeping both user@ and dev@ in the CC
-- I subscribe to user but not dev.)

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: suggest $Source$ as alias for $HeadURL$

[Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org>]

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org> writes:
>> A few days ago, the topic of supporting $Header$ came up on the list.
>> While we're on the subject, I'd like to suggestion supporting
>> $Source$ as an alias for $HeadURL$.  This would make it possible to
>> use the same keywords for RCS, CVS, and Subversion it at least that
>> additional case.
>
> There are arguments on both sides, of course, but I think the reason
> we've not made a priority of completely compatible keyword-matching is
> that our keyword values don't correspond to precisely the same
> concepts anyway.  For example, the SVN URL and the CVS RCSPath are not
> *quite* the same thing, although they aren't quite different things
> either.

Granted.  Here's one way in which they are the same: I don't keep
/etc, /sbin, and so forth in subversion or CVS, but I do keep a
parallel tree with only changed files in it.  If I put a completely
customized script or configuration file on my system, I rely on
$Source$ (or $URL$) to notify the reader of where the authoritative,
controlled copy of that file actually lives.  $Source$ and $URL$ both
provide the functionality with equal effectiveness.  Of course, a
simple note in the file header stating that this is a controlled file
combined with a find or locate command would also serve that purpose.
Here's one way in which they differ: $Source$ with CVS gives you an
actual path to an actual file you could look at and do something with;
$HeadURL$ with Subversion does not.

I personally don't feel that strongly about it.  Reading arguments
about why keyword expansion is not the default have already made me
change some long-held ideas about keyword expansion.  Also, when
creating new files in subversion, since one has to already take an
extra step to enable keyword expansion, they can easily take an extra
step to change $Source$ to $URL$ if they get it wrong the first time.
For my specific case, a 10-line perl script, emacs keyboard macro, and
about 3 minutes were all it took me to make the change in my
/home/sysadmin area.

Anyway, thanks for considering this request.  It will be interesting
to see the outcome.  (Sorry for keeping both user@ and dev@ in the CC
-- I subscribe to user but not dev.)

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <ej...@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org