From: David Lang Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:45:54 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > 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? not all uses of VCS's involve useing make >>> 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? becouse the VCS can do the job better then anything else? even if there are limits to what the VCS can do. David Lang