[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]
Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Re: [XaraXtreme-commits] Commit Complete
- From: Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:11:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Re: [XaraXtreme-commits] Commit Complete
In message <5680D9DF648C0E7F896FBA6A@[192.168.100.25]>
Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought "Id" and "Revision" where synonyms? I think the files will
> need to be checked out and checked in again to bump the revision.
No, "Revision" is different from "Id". "Id" expands to the long file
id including the file name, the latest checkin date, the revision
number and the user who checked it in. "Revision" (and its synonym
"Rev") expands to the revision number only. Most of the files I have
looked at do not show the correct revision number in the
DECLARE_SOURCE lines, which makes these lines useless.
Just as "Id", the "Revision" keyword needs to be enabled explicitly on
a per-file basis in svn. Using auto-props it can be done automatically
for new files.
It also seems that the files were initially added to the repository
with an expanded Revision value "$Revision: 662 $" present instead of
"$Revision$" - I do not know whether that will cause any problems.
Probably not, so I guess, just enabling the Revision keyword will do.
Not a big deal anyway, but since the DECLARE_SOURCE lines are present
in so many files we might just as well try and get them right. ;-)
> --On 30 March 2006 17:50 +0200 Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> In message <200603301527.k2UFRwrd006527@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> subversion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Commit by : phil
>>> Repository : xara
>>> Revision : 747
>>> Date : Thu Mar 30 16:27:58 BST 2006
>>> Changed paths:
>>> M /Trunk/XaraLX/wxOil/ftfonts.cpp
>>> Update props?
>>> Property changes on: Trunk/XaraLX/wxOil/ftfonts.cpp
>>> Name: svn:keywords
>>> + Id
>> More on keywords: This source file, amongst many others, contains a
>> DECLARE_SOURCE( "$Revision$" );
>> statement, so it requires the Revision keyword, too. I included this
>> line in ftfonts.cpp because I found it in a lot of other sources, so I
>> thought it was customary to have it. Unfortunately, since none of the
>> files have the "Revision" keyword enabled in svn, the revision markers
>> in all source files are stuck at revision 622.
>> So, we should either remove the DECLARE_SOURCE line from all files or
>> enable the "Revision" keyword for all files.