Re: Policy: Versioning Macros In The Archive

[Peter Simons]

Braden McDaniel writes:

 >> @version $Id: foo.m4,v 1.2 2004/02/15 10:09:31 bar Exp $
 >> @version 2004-02-15

 > I don't think it's a good idea for the archive to be
 > stripping a release version number that submitters may
 > include as well.

The problem is that this additional information has no
relevance for the archive. Someone submits a macro that
claims to be version 1.5. Then someone else imports the
macro into his own CVS, where it suddenly becomes 1.1.1.1
(because people _do_ forget -kb). He patches the macro, then
sends us version 1.1. Duh!

The only reliable version information is the date stamp of
the last modification _in the archive_.

We _could_ leave the original text the submitter used in the
@version tag. The tool does extract the date anyway, so it
wouldn't matter if @version was free text as long as it
contained a date. I just don't think it's wise to do that
because _we_ do forget -kb too, I bet. And then it's messed
up. So I think it is better to have @version contain only
the relevant information -- an easily parsable and
universally understood date stamp.

Peter