Re: versioning macros

[Peter Simons]

Bastiaan Veelo writes:

 >> I am torn about the copyright notice. Repeating the GPL
 >> synopsis AND the GPL-exception in every single file feels
 >> weird. That is a LOT of redundancy, especially given the
 >> fact that under the given URL you will find all the
 >> information you'd ever want.

 > I don't need the complete license text embedded in the
 > macro, but a short notice of who owns the copyright and
 > where to find the license text is a minimum.

There is one: every macro contains the URL of its
corresponding web page and this page has _all_ this
information readily available. What is the benefit of
repeating that information explicitly in a file that's meant
to be machine-processed?


 > Because macro's can be downloaded at the click of a
 > button without being packaged or anything, and because
 > they then become part of X different project trees with
 > all their own copyright holders and possibly different
 > licenses, this information needs to follow the macro.

The URL is still there, so all the information you want is
just one mouse click away. So are newer versions, other
macros, etc. It's not like that information would be "lost".


 >> Why do want this all redundancy? What's wrong about an
 >> URL?

 > Not everybody is online all the time.

The files are also included in the distribution -- including
the license. You don't need to be online to access that.


 > Wait a minute, I just discovered that the distributed
 > macros in the legacy tree also are generated! When did
 > that change?

Almost exactly 2 years ago.


 > And why?

To reduce redundancy.


 > sf.net still distributes the pristine sources, and I
 > think it should be that way.

gnu.org _does_ distribute the pristine sources: that's where
sf.net is getting them from. ;-) It's all available in CVS,
via Savannah, etc. The only difference is in the
presentation, e.g. release archives and web site.


 > [It] is confusing that two files with the same name from
 > the same site have different contents.

I agree.


 >> I really don't see how manually assigned version numbers
 >> would have any advantage.

 > That would be fine if there is only one repository, and
 > files are not committed to other repositories without the
 > -ko flag. But I have my macro in my own development tree,
 > and there may be many commits there before it is ready
 > for release.

How about adding -ko to the macro in gnu.org's CVS
repository? Then you could use CVS $Id$ (or whatever) to
denote the version and it would come from _your_ repository?

Peter