Re: RCS keyword expansion

From: Peter Karlsson <peter@softwolves.pp.se>
Date: Oct 12, 2007, 10:50 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710121144001.3682@ds9.cixit.se>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710121057540.25221@racer.site>

Hi!

> please do not play games with the To: header.  We have a policy here 
> (which is supposed to be good netiquette) that we keep people in the Cc: 
> list that we respond to.

Sorry, didn't mean to do anything. I try to avoid Cc'ing people that are on the mailing list, and apparently strange things happened that kept the mailing list only as Cc. I'll try to remember setting To: properly.

Back on-topic:

> But don't you see?  When switching branches, this totally breaks down.

Why would it? If the file is the same on both branches, nothing would happen (it is still the same version), and if the file is different, it gets changed anyway, and a new keyword expansion would take place.

> No, really, IMHO it is enough to show either the commit name or the
> blob name of the file. After all, you are not interested in the date
> that this file was last committed, but in the _contents_.

Yes, but I want it on the lowest addressable unit size, i.e on the file level (I could possibly want to have the last commit for a set of files when I have something that get generated from several sources, but that is rare for a regular website, unless since javascripts and stylesheets etc. are delivered separately).

Already today when you do "git log" on a file, you get the log filtered for only changes to that file. So the mechanisms seem already to be there, I just need to figure out how to apply them to what I want.

> So why not go for the contents?  With CVS/SVN you only have the
> chance to do that by date or version number. With git, we have a more
> powerful way: we do it by a hash of the contents.

Yes, but the hash if of "everything". I'm not interested in "everything" in this context, and I don't want to have a separate git repository for each file...

> If it's not what you want, I suggest rethinking what you want ;-)
> Otherwise it is scripting time for you.  It's easy enough with git.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I assume it would be possible to do with some kind of hook that is run on checkout. But I can't figure out how to do that.

-- 
\\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/