On 1/31/14, 8:00 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > This is why you don't use keywords if you can avoid it, especially for > multi-environment projects. Frankly, you will often have diffs with > keywords and "svn:eol-style": Don't evey try to pretend that anything > with keywords is going to be byte for byte consistent between working > environments. > > And this is *especially* why you don't use "custom keywords". They're > not porable. > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Thorsten Schöning >> This doesn't seem to be a keyword which svn clients expand by default, >> therefore you would have two building lots. >> >> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.8/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html
Branko gave a perfectly reasonable answer. Beyond that I honestly don't get the point of these two emails. FreeBSD uses keywords because as an open source project they ship source. Even more importantly they have downstream projects (e.g. Apple uses their find command http://opensource.apple.com/source/shell_cmds/shell_cmds-175/find/main.c ). I can't think of a better way of tracking versioning for them once the source leaves their version control system and potentially goes into another. Yes there are all sorts of annoying bits about this. Custom properties don't really make anything more difficult. Since custom properties are repository dictated configuration. In fact the custom property feature was written by the FreeBSD guys and then passed along upstream to ease this burden. They're not expecting Perforce to ever expand these. They stay literal in the source to show the base from upstream. The fact that Perforce doesn't expand it can be considered a feature. So if you're going to critique their technique, how about making a suggestion of a better technique. It's like a couple guys snickering in their Ferrari as a lorry goes by because he could have gotten there much faster in a Ferrari, even though the driver of the lorry only has the goal to get 10 tons of freight there not go fast.
