Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:14:01 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/isa/bs bs.c bs_isa.c bs_pisa.c bsfunc.c bsfunc.h bshw.c bshw.h bshw.lst bshw_dma.c bshw_pdma.c bsvar.h ccbque.h dvcfg.h scsi_dvcfg.h Message-ID: <199701060314.NAA07311@troll.devetir.qld.gov.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 17:55:53 -0800 >From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> >> Undo RCS keyword change to keep the original `$NetBSD$'. > >Maybe we finally want to do what we've been threatening to do for >years now and take all the $Id$, $NetBSD$, $OpenBSD$, $FooBSD$ and >$BarBSD$ crap out of our source tree? > >I recognise the *potential* benefit of such expansion, but balanced >against the *clear and obvious annoyances* that they cause, I don't >think they're worth it at all. My first impression is "Bollocks!", but that's too harsh in a public forum. :-) I add "$Id" lines to all my code, at home and at work, and normally to be compiled in so that "ident fooprog" gives me the goodies. I save enormous amounts of time not having to guess what versions of files were used to build an executable. It's really useful, and there should be more of it. What are these "clear and obvious annoyances"? They've never bitten me, and I don't see how it applies to the NetBSD vs Id case we have here. Stephen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701060314.NAA07311>