This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: Are RCS ID's bad?
- To: "'Andrew Cagney'" <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: RE: Are RCS ID's bad?
- From: "Mcspadden, William C" <william dot c dot mcspadden at intel dot com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:19:49 -0700
I find the RCS keywords useful (except for $Log$) and would not
recommend deleting them.
For purposes of merges and diffs, keyword expansion can be suppressed
by cvs when you do a checkout. See chapter 12 of the CVS manual for
a discussion of this.
This eliminated the many problems I had when doing merges caused by
the very thing you describe. However, it didn't eliminate the problems
with the $Log$ expansion. Just don't use $Log$.
Bill Mc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Cagney [mailto:ac131313@cygnus.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Are RCS ID's bad?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm considering deleting any line containing something like:
>
> $Id: .... $
>
> ($Date: ..$; ....) from the GDB source tree. They make a
> right mess of
> merges, diffs, compares and the like.
>
> Can anyone come up with a reason to retain these?
>
> GDB has gdb/version.in as a revision identifier. Going by recent
> e-mail's this is proving very effective - people are identifying GDB
> snapshots and checkouts by date (although sometimes the
> quoted dates are
> backwards :-)
>
> Andrew
>
>