Re: obsoleted vs acinclude tool

[Peter Simons]

Guido Draheim writes:

 > [CVS Id is fine]

One more question: Would it make sense to _enforce_ that the macros
are version-ed by _our_ CVS? 

The advantage is that this would _guarantee_ an up-to-date version
number for every macro. Furthermore, we could get rid of one more
field in the submission format; one less for the authors to worry
about.

I believe that the author controlling the version number is
impractical for the following reasons:

 - We will have inconsistent version-ing schemes for macros.

 - Authors may forget to bump the version when submitting patches.

 - It is bound to create ambiguities when somebody but the author
   submits a patch.

 - It causes version numbers to "jump".


 >> The reason why I would like to have an expiry date is because then
 >> macros can be moved from "obsolete" to "history" automatically
 >> [...]

 > If you have some automatic process in the range, well, let's use
 > it.

I don't. :-) But I could easily add that to the system.


 > when is a macro "name" free again?

Gosh, I didn't think of that! Good point.

What I don't understand though, is why we need _three_ stages for
that? As far as I can tell, two should suffice, because when the macro
is gone ("finalized"), it is gone. There is no entry left; the name is
free. Am I missing something?

Peter