What are the arguments for replacing keywords as a function in version control systems?

Question

Are there any arguments against substituting keywords (i.e., substituting $Revision$for $Revision: 5$) as a function in version control systems?

I am not looking for debate. I'm looking for well-thought-out arguments by people who think this feature is a bad idea.

Here is one such argument:

• Keyword: why you don't need it

This is eloquent, and I think the argument about the problems that it causes for binaries is convincing, but I don't find it convincing.

Again, I'm not interested in debate, just good arguments again in this function. I can make up my own mind, but I want to have good data to do this.

Answer 1

I admit that so many years have passed since I used keyword substitution in the version control system.

It is actually difficult to justify this $Log$. At first it seems like a good idea, but after a while it really begins to clutter the source. Information can be easily accessed from a version control system when necessary, therefore there is redundancy in the file.

Answer 2

Well, what arguments do you have for ?

If you need version information: “who changed what, when and why?”, Ask your repository.

-, , , , - ( : , . )

, . , " 124". . , " 124 :".

---

CVS , - ?? . VSS GIT, .

( , CVS.)

Answer 3

, , , " ": - . ​​

, , , , (, ).

: , . , , .

Answer 4

, , "" , . :

• , . ? "" ? ?

• ? , - .

subversion, . . , , .