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

[Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>]

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?


Nicolas