You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> on 2005/02/07 17:01:40 UTC
RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Does anyone else find it somewhat inappropriate that:
svn:keywords="LastChangedRevision"
allows the expansion of:
"$Rev$"
?
Not that we can easily fix this until 2.0, I fear.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by John Peacock <jp...@rowman.com>.
Max Bowsher wrote:
> OK, it's a balance - I can understand that. But I'm worried that we may
> have _some_ complexity, which offers too little control to be useful.
>
> I guess I would be reassured if someone can quote some use cases where
> it is useful for svn:keywords to have a value including all 5 keywords.
But I would think that the situation is actually the opposite: it is
very useful to have svn:keywords have values for less than all 5
keywords. AFAIK, the only common use for setting all 5 is in the test
suite to make sure they all work. ;)
John
--
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why is it good to be able to control $Rev$ and $URL$ seperately, but
>> have $Rev$ and $LastChangedRevision$ not independently controllable?
>> I.e. why isn't svn:keywords a simple boolean, in that case?
>>
>>
>
> There's no need to be extreme. One extreme is a single boolean to
> either activate all keywords or not. At the other extreme is the
> possibility of fine-grained activation of every possible keyword alias.
> We chose to take the middle ground: control over activation of each
> semantic "group" of keyword aliases.
>
> Are you arguing that the middle ground is bad? If so, why?
Well, the point of svn:keywords is to allow you to use some keywords whilst
preserving others unexpanded, right?
Is significantly more likely to want this at the granularity of semantic
groups, rather than below that granularity?
> To me, the first extreme is too little control. The other extreme is
> overly complex.
OK, it's a balance - I can understand that. But I'm worried that we may have
_some_ complexity, which offers too little control to be useful.
I guess I would be reassured if someone can quote some use cases where it is
useful for svn:keywords to have a value including all 5 keywords.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>
> Why is it good to be able to control $Rev$ and $URL$ seperately, but
> have $Rev$ and $LastChangedRevision$ not independently controllable?
> I.e. why isn't svn:keywords a simple boolean, in that case?
>
>
There's no need to be extreme. One extreme is a single boolean to
either activate all keywords or not. At the other extreme is the
possibility of fine-grained activation of every possible keyword alias.
We chose to take the middle ground: control over activation of each
semantic "group" of keyword aliases.
Are you arguing that the middle ground is bad? If so, why?
To me, the first extreme is too little control. The other extreme is
overly complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by John Peacock <jp...@rowman.com>.
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Why is it good to be able to control $Rev$ and $URL$ seperately, but
> have $Rev$ and $LastChangedRevision$ not independently controllable?
Because $Rev$ and $URL$ are two different _values_ and $Rev$ and
$LastChangedRevision$ are two different _names_ for the same value.
> I.e. why isn't svn:keywords a simple boolean, in that case?
Because you might not want to have all keywords expanded, just because
you wanted some keywords expanded. For example, you imported CVS files
and you want the existing $Rev$ maintained, but the $Author$ to reflect
the name of the user who imported the files...
John
--
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
John Peacock wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Does anyone else find it somewhat inappropriate that:
>>
>> svn:keywords="LastChangedRevision"
>>
>> allows the expansion of:
>>
>> "$Rev$"
>>
>
> Why? All three forms are equivalent ways of referring to the same
> keyword. The reverse is true as well:
>
> svn:keywords="Rev"
>
> will expand
>
> "$LastChangedRevision$"
>
> too.
Why is it good to be able to control $Rev$ and $URL$ seperately, but have
$Rev$ and $LastChangedRevision$ not independently controllable? I.e. why
isn't svn:keywords a simple boolean, in that case?
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by John Peacock <jp...@rowman.com>.
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Does anyone else find it somewhat inappropriate that:
>
> svn:keywords="LastChangedRevision"
>
> allows the expansion of:
>
> "$Rev$"
>
Why? All three forms are equivalent ways of referring to the same
keyword. The reverse is true as well:
svn:keywords="Rev"
will expand
"$LastChangedRevision$"
too.
John
--
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance
Posted by Mark Phippard <Ma...@softlanding.com>.
"Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> wrote on 02/07/2005 12:01:40 PM:
> Does anyone else find it somewhat inappropriate that:
>
> svn:keywords="LastChangedRevision"
>
> allows the expansion of:
>
> "$Rev$"
Isn't that just one of the aliases, along with $Revision$?
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s02.html#svn-ch-7-sect-2.3.4
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org