RE: [log4perl-devel] Log4Perl and CVS enhancement

[Bobby N. <bwn...@fe...>]

Lars,

Thanks for the reply.=20

You raise some pertinent points, which, I can't really argue with as
they make lots of sense.  I'm curious, though, as to whether you have
keyword expansion turned off for these two files on the sourceforge CVS
server?  That seems to be the only way to explain why this hasn't become
an issue for you there as well.  Unfortunately, I can't check for myself
as I'm behind a firewall here at work, so please forgive me having to
even ask this question.

Thanks again,

Bobby

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Thegler [mailto:la...@th...]=20
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:51 AM
To: Bobby Nations
Cc: log...@li...
Subject: Re: [log4perl-devel] Log4Perl and CVS enhancement


Bobby Nations wrote:
> This is more than a little annoying as we typically will check all
> external source code, such as Log4Perl, into our CVS server for
tracking
> and inclusion in our projects.  By default, those two files will get
> hosed up when we check them back out because CVS interprets the
> '\$Log.*\\$" as it's $Log$ keyword.  The only workaround is to tag
these
> as binary files in CVS, which works but is a bit of a kludge and it's
> easy to forget.

IMHO it is a very bad policy to allow CVS to do keyword expansion in=20
third-party sources. You do not control those sources, so you can never=20
be sure that permutations in the source will not fool CVS into believing

it can safely expand what it thinks are keywords. Your _only_ safe bet=20
is to disallow keyword expansion entirely when you check the sources=20
into CVS, by using the -ko flag. This is not a kludge - this is the=20
exact reason for that particular flag. Write a script to do the=20
importing of your third-party sources, if you're worried you'll forget=20
the -ko.

> Would you please change the above two files so that they no longer
match
> the regular expression, "\$Log.*\\$"?  This would really help out
folks
> in the field. =20

You are also asking the the authors in all future refrain from using=20
anything that CVS (or any other version control system) would confuse=20
for a keyword? Not a reasonable request, methinks.

/Lars