Mon 02 May 2005 04:24:17 PM UTC, original submission:
Okay, summary is a bit overoptimistic, I believe it is generally not expected that MT could come up with sensible and useful revision or version tags (numerically incremental at least).
I wonder whether it's possible to have $Date$ and $Revision$ though. Revision could contain MT revision SHA1, and Date would obviously contain date of last checkout or update.
These obviously doesn't have any use if the source file is being tracked by MT, but they became extremely useful when the source leaves version tracking. Since MT cannot come up with meaningful (incremental) $Version$s, $Date$ and $Author$ could be the best help to be able to tell that the untracked source is at which version, or actually whether SourceA is newer than SourceB.
I know, parallel developent makes it non-trivial to decide whether a file is newer than the other, but humans are pretty good at guessing, so I could guess that a file with a year old timestamp may be older than the one dated yesterday, no matter how warped the development graph is. :)
What I don't know how MT would handle this, since expanded macros change the SHA1 of the files, but I guess it is handled similaryly in every SCM: convert to general form before work and expand it [again] afterwards.
Would be very handy for releasing MT tracked source to the public by non-MT means...
|