discuss: Re: Ok to use cvs keywords for date and revision?
Subject:
Re: Ok to use cvs keywords for date and revision?
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Jan 2001 15:59:42 -0000
Message-Id: <10101041055.ZM8274@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Jan 4, 10:51am, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> Subject: Re: Ok to use cvs keywords for date and revision?
> "Robert B. Easter" wrote:
> >
> > Is there a problem with using the cvs keywords for date and
> > revision like:
> >
> > <date>$Date$</date>
> > <revnumber>$Revision$</revnumber>
> >
> > which become like:
> >
> > <date>$Date: 2001/01/04 13:41:40 $</date>
> > <revnumber>$Revision: 1.2 $</revnumber>
> >
>
> Oof. We're going to get back into the whole date thing again.
> I'm not actually sure we ecer solved it, did we? Guylhem, want
> to make an executive decision and be done with it?
I'm pretty sure we did decide (at least it seemed like a quorum)...
The ISO "YYYY-MM-DD" format should be used. The templates will
reflect that (soon) and we should put that in the LDP AG (if it
isn't already specified).
Please, no more beating that dead horse! :-}
> In terms of revision, in some cases the CVS rev will work, but
> I have multiple files, of which some get updated outside
> the main file that includes the revision number. Maybe a
> tag release number would work.
I'd rather see the version and date entered by the author instead
of taken from CVS. I think it better reflects the intention of
the author (plus, if we need to re-submit to CVS or something of that
nature, at least the date/revision stays consistent)...imo.
r,
--
Greg Ferguson - s/w engr / mtlhd | gferg at sgi.com
SGI Tech Pubs - http://techpubs.sgi.com/ |
Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org/ | gferg at metalab.unc.edu
