GNU bug report logs - #43442
Code stored with Subversion (SVN) cannot be retrieved from SWH

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>
Cc: 43442 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#43442] Subversion keyword substitution
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 11:16:43 -0600

Hi!

Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr> writes:

> OK.  I’ll submit a patch to that effect, unless you beat me at it.  :-)

I’m on it!  It might take me another day or two to actually submit the
patch.  The keyword expansion change affects ‘texlive-bin’, which means
a lot of rebuilds, so I guess we will need to coordinate a feature
branch or whatever (my understanding is that core-updates is essentially
frozen and deprecated at this point).

> Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com> skribis:
>
>> Thinking entirely abstractly, the keywords should be expanded.  I’m not
>> really long enough in the tooth (old enough) to know how people use
>> keywords, but one might be tempted to do something like:
>>
>>     printf ("This is foo version %s\n", "$Revision$");
>>
>> If that ever happens, processing the keywords would be very important.
>
> “Very” might be an overstatement.  :-)
>
> In practice, these were typically used in source file headers, so that
> if you exported or copied files around (outside version control), they’d
> have a timestamp of sorts at the top.

I ended up finding 17 origins that make use of keyword expansion.  Two
of them indeed do so outside of comments.  (1) The “texlive-scripts”
source has some Perl scripts that do the Perl equivalent of my example
above.  (2) There’s some Java code (“geronimo”) that uses keywords in
Javadoc comments, which might show up in generated documentation.

So no, definitely not “very” important!  :)

>> Huh.  My scripts tell me that we haven’t needed it at all in the last
>> three years.  That’s a suspicious enough result that I wonder if there’s
>> a bug in my scripts.  The results are looking good so far, but there are
>> a few things I still need to look over.
>
> Looks like it might be easily addressed!

I’ll switch the ‘recursive?’ field to ‘#f’ by default as part of the
series I send in.


-- Tim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.