[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The hated $Log$ keyword

From: Martin Neitzel
Subject: Re: The hated $Log$ keyword
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:40:19 +0200 (CEST)

>BTW, I appreciate the arguments against using $Log$ (redundancy, 
>merging, admin -m, etc.), but these guys really like the Header 
>Comments functionality they had with another system (MPW Projector) 

Back in the 80's when I was starting with rcs I considered $Log$
entries to be cute at first.  I soon found out that the entries
have these handicaps:

- At rev 1.20, the old entries tend to turn into superfluous ballast
  rather than useful information (perhaps a bit like the GPL in every
  file ;-)

- Like $Header$ information, it brings its own kind of troubles to

- The Cederquist already points out in the place referenced by you
  that spelling and other fixes in the $Log$ area are a big no-no.
  Nevertheless, the temptation to do so is high, and it is difficult
  just to accept any deficiences in this area.

I stopped using $Log$ info in the files with rcs and never did
so with cvs.  "Hidden logs" are just fine since you can always
get them back with "cvs log" (or rcs' "rlog").  The Number One
selling point for hidden logs is (in my opinion) that you
can get a concise summary of the recent changes by "cvs log -D ...".
Nobody wants to grope through the $Log$ entries in *all* source
files in order to get such a summary.  I tell my team partners
about "cvs log -D ..." because it's necessary to quickly identify
the possibles causes for a wrecked system.   Internal $Log$s
wouldn't be a substitute for a "cvs log ..." across the entire

                                                HTH, Martin Neitzel

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]