Menu
▾
▴
Re: icu digest, Vol 1 #685 - 2 msgs
|
From: George R. <gr...@us...> - 2004-03-27 00:43:25
|
FYI convrtrs.txt is not installed with gmake install any more. Of the non-binary files installed, only the man pages, license.html and headers are installed. George Rhoten IBM Globalization Center of Competency/ICU San José, CA, USA ICU main website: http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu/index.html Alan S Liu/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS Sent by: icu...@ww... 03/26/2004 12:53 PM To: Steven R Loomis/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS cc: gri...@ro..., ic...@ww..., Markus Scherer/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS Subject: Re: icu digest, Vol 1 #685 - 2 msgs I think I'm going to post this back out to the list to see if any other opinions arise. I'm also going to CC Markus directly to see what he thinks. [Alan S Liu/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS; al...@us...;; IBM Globalization; 5600 Cottle Road; San Jose, CA 95193;; (408) 256-3155] Steven R Loomis/Cupertino/IBM 03/26/2004 11:54 AM To Alan S Liu/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc gri...@ro... Subject Re: icu digest, Vol 1 #685 - 2 msgs Hello, Thanks for your input. In fact on a recent diff excursion (diffing all packaged source versions of ICU against their respective CVS tags..) I ended up using the facility of diff which can ignore a regular expression. ( -I i believe) . You also have a good point about the user files.. such as convrts.txt which is installed on the user's side. Alan do you know if other diff tools (compareIt?) can ignore these tags? webcvs could be modified as well .. -s Alan S Liu/San Jose/IBM 03/26/2004 11:30 AM To gri...@ro... cc Steven R Loomis/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS Subject Re: icu digest, Vol 1 #685 - 2 msgs Frank: Thanks for your reply. I'm bringing Steven Loomis into the discussion, who is the most familiar with the issues we've run into with the tags. In fact, Steven is the person best suited to reply. We can always copy this back out to the list, esp. if any one else shows any interest in what is admittedly a relatively low level issue. I'm the person implementing this, but I'm not really the person driving it, since I don't do any CVS repository maintenance -- Steven does that stuff. P.S. The light of true reason is always welcome :-). Alan [Alan S Liu/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS; al...@us...;; IBM Globalization; 5600 Cottle Road; San Jose, CA 95193;; (408) 256-3155] Frank Griswold <gri...@ro...> 03/26/2004 10:05 AM Please respond to griswolf To Alan S Liu/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc gri...@ro... Subject Re: icu digest, Vol 1 #685 - 2 msgs Alan: I took this off line because it seems silly to waste many peoples time with it. Feel free to reply to the reflector if you prefer. I don't know if CVS keywords are pervasive in ICU code. If they are not, then most of what I have to say is moot. Certainly, since I work with ICU mostly as a user (though I have found it needful to fix the occasionaly ICU bug that impacts my use), I have less personal stake in the outcome than a developer would have. However, in the interest of helping you see the light of true reason <grin>, here's my take: The CVS keywords are there because some people find them useful. At Rogue Wave, we use Perforce which has a similar utility; and have long used $Id: because it gives us quite a bit of utility for very low effort: 1: Each file is perfectly self-identified. In a multi-branch environment with ongoing support for several releases, this can be a critical piece of disambiguation. 2: Diffs are self-identified. The top few lines of a diff extend point 1 for each file, as well as telling you the direction of the diff. As a long time code maintainer, I assure you it is possible to lose track mentally of which way you ran the diff; particularly if it was generated by some kind of tool. $Id: lines give that information back immediately. 3: Support effort is less often misplaced. This is just point 1 again, from the perspective of someone trying to help the typical hapless (l)user. Believe me when I tell you that users lie about versions (usually from ignorance). $Id: lines may lie as well, if someone has made changes on site; but they are -much- more accurate than users. Summary: The added value of unambiguous file version identification is much greater than the added cost of extra diff lines. If you truely find the extra diff lines difficult to deal with, I bet there is already an RCSdiff utility that can be tuned to do what you want. Have you looked? I did a very quick google on "rcsdiff" and found at least one hit that looked promising: http://www.rtr.com/winpak/Documentation/rcsdiff.htm In any case, I'm quite sure that it is the matter of only an hour or two(*) to create a script to do it. The basic idea would be to filter the keyword lines out of the files of interest prior to running diff. The alternative of filtering diff output is harder because diff adds various kinds of context depending on how it is invoked. But for myself, if the diff is intended for human consumption, I much prefer to leave them in. (*)I would have said "a few minutes" if I were doing it for myself, one-shot. The added hours are for error handling, robustness, better output clarity. Add a few more hours if you need a compiled version. >> To: ic...@ww... >> Subject: Proposal: Remove CVS keywords from source >> From: Alan S Liu <al...@us...> >> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:31:35 -0800 >> >> http://www.jtcsv.com/cgibin/icu-bugs?findid=3666 >> >> Affects: All ICU projects. >> >> Proposal: Remove *all CVS keywords* from all ICU source code. >> >> Rationale: These keywords are not really useful and they cause spurious >> differences. Steven Loomis knows more about this and can supply further >> details. >> >> For a list of affected keywords see: >> http://www.loria.fr/~molli/cvs/doc/cvs_12.html -- frank griswold _______________________________________________ icu mailing list ic...@os... http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/icu |