Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c

> 
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 2007, April 17, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> Trust me. There's NO WAY IN HELL it will "work" in any other sense
>>> than "limp along and not be usable".
>>
>> Well I'm making progress, "limp along" is a significant step up from
>> impossible.  :-)
>>
>> Look, my primary objection to this is the SHOUTING about how impossible
>> it is even though I've tried to address every problem you've thrown at
>> me - I'm finding it really difficult to figure out why you're trying so
>> hard to dissuade me from even _trying_.  If it all goes wrong (as I
>> fully accept it might), so be it, I can live with that; I'll even be
>> happy to tell you you're right and I'm wrong.  Why is this such a
>> problem?
>>
>> Keywords are so hated by everyone that I doubt they would ever be
>> accepted into git - it's an intellectual exercise for me at this stage
>> really.
>
> I cannot do otherwise than ask at this point in the debate: why isn't
> the makefile rule sufficient for your needs?  Why going through a
> complicated path that no one else will support due to its numerous
> pitfalls?

>>> Yes, you can make your "print it out" example work, but as alreadyt
>>> mentioned, you could have done that some other way, with a simple
>>> makefile rule, quite independently (and much better) than the SCM
>>> ever did.
>>
>> That's just being obtuse - no other tool cares in the slightest about
>> the keywords, there are more "tools" in the world than just the VCS.
>
> ... which reinforces my question: why force a task on the VCS if it
> doesn't fit well with its fundamental design?