Re: Weird shallow-tree conversion state, and branches of shallow trees

From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 16, 2007, 20:55 UTC
Message-ID: <200704162155.25114.andyparkins@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vwt0crts2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Monday 2007, April 16, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> In your workflow, when do you "print"?

After a save and commit.  Otherwise - as you point out, the id is wrong.

> the final "cvs diff" would say you have such and such changes to
> the drawing file you just printed since the checked-in version.
> However, doesn't "$Id: ... $" embedded in the printed copy say
> it is from the last checked-in version?

Yep. You will get no argument from me that keywords are by no means definitive.

> Is inkscape aware of the "$Id: ... $" keyword and modifies such
> string by munging it to "$Id: ..., modified $", once you make a

Nope. Inkscape knows nothing about the expansion. However, even if I wasn't careful to only print out checked in files, it would still narrow down the possible versions to one of two.

> local modification to the document?  Otherwise you cannot tell
> if the printed copy is pristine and match what the $Id$ keyword
> claims it is.

Correct. Every user of keywords is aware that the keyword doesn't update all the time - in fact there's nothing to stop you changing the keyword yourself to an utter lie. I think the assumption is that you aren't fighting your own tools though.

> Or maybe in your workflow, such a local modification may not
> actually matter because you made a habit of not making a drastic
> edit before printing.

Yep.

> Or perhaps maybe you never print a locally modified copy.

Yep. In fact, for me, most of the time I'm printing a diagram that was checked in a number of revisions ago. It's not the case that I modify-print. However, that's just me.

> Does Inkscape have a batch mode operation?  It might be an
> option to have something like this in the Makefile if it does (I
> do not know if it does, and if so what the syntax is, so this is
> totally made up):

I think it does as it happens; and your little script is just the sort of thing I will use when I get around to fixing this hole.

However, it's missing the point to take my example as an unsolved problem - there are plenty of ways I can get what I want; I brought it up merely as a counter to the statement that there were no valid situations for wanting keyword expansion.

Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com