From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Mcspadden, William C" <william.c.mcspadden@intel.com>
To: "'Andrew Cagney'" <ac131313@cygnus.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: RE: Are RCS ID's bad?
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:20:00 -0000
Message-id: <9287DC1579B0D411AA2F009027F44C3F064FAEE5@FMSMSX41>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00092.html

I find the RCS keywords useful (except for $Log$) and would not
recommend deleting them. 

For purposes of merges and diffs, keyword expansion can be suppressed
by cvs when you do a checkout. See chapter 12 of the CVS manual for
a discussion of this. 

This eliminated the many problems I had when doing merges caused by
the very thing you describe. However, it didn't eliminate the problems
with the $Log$ expansion. Just don't use $Log$.

Bill Mc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Cagney [ mailto:ac131313@cygnus.com ]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Are RCS ID's bad?
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm considering deleting any line containing something like:
> 
> 	$Id: .... $
> 
> ($Date: ..$; ....) from the GDB source tree.  They make a 
> right mess of 
> merges, diffs, compares and the like.
> 
> Can anyone come up with a reason to retain these?
> 
> GDB has gdb/version.in as a revision identifier.  Going by recent 
> e-mail's this is proving very effective - people are identifying GDB 
> snapshots and checkouts by date (although sometimes the 
> quoted dates are 
> backwards :-)
> 
> 	Andrew
> 
>