From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200704171041.46176.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200704171803.58940.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200704172012.31280.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Junio C Hamano To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 17 21:42:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HdtYc-0007z4-KJ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031188AbXDQTld (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:41:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031186AbXDQTld (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:41:33 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:10943 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031184AbXDQTlc (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:41:32 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JGN00FCKQP5L5D0@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:41:31 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <200704172012.31280.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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