[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: cvs commitinfo - remote access issues - enforced code beautification

From: Noel Yap
Subject: Re: cvs commitinfo - remote access issues - enforced code beautification
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:46:06 -0800 (PST)

--- "Thomas S. Urban" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Yeah, I understand that keywords expansion is
> required for my kludge to
> work, and that what I am doing is a definitely a
> kludge.

If you're going this route, I would suggest your
commitinfo script also check for the existence of RCS
keywords within the files.

> If this
> undocumented feature is ever removed, I will have to
> reevaluate what I'm
> doing.  If this ever does change, I would request
> that in addition to
> fixing what information is sent back to the client
> (diff versus whole
> file), the developers should also remove the
> capability to modify the
> file that gets checked in - give the commitinfo
> script a temporary copy
> of each file that isn't used to modify the rcs file.
>  Either that or
> properly support and docuemnt the feature ;).

I think such enforcement would require too much

Also, even if such a feature were supported, it
shouldn't be used since resolving conflicts due to
mass changes from beautification is an extremely
tedious task.

The way I've handled such things in the past was to
serialize development while mass beautification
occurred.  Still, this doesn't resolve problems that
may occur from branches.  OTOH, mass beautification
should only be an initial cost.  Projects will need to
weigh out the initial cost of beautification versus
long-term costs of not beautifying.  A project may
also choose to amortize the beautification, but I
haven't analyzed the pro's and con's of doing so.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

reply via email to

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