Source changes should include date of change

[Josphe Brigmo]

On Sunday, 9 September 2018 at 02:49:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 4:29 AM, Josphe Brigmo wrote:
>> Um, I didn't say don't use Git!
>
> I've done this manually before git. I can guarantee you that 
> the dates put in the file are invariably wrong, incomplete, or 
> non-existent.
>
> But if you bring up a source file in github, and click on the 
> "Blame" button, it'll tell you, for every line in the source, 
> which PR last changed that line.

Yes, but if one has access to git then that is pointless.

Yes, dates go out of sync and are hard to maintain. THis is why 
it takes a more complex system to cover those issues property.

One wouldn't just include the date but other meta information 
that removes and reduces these problems that people complain 
about.

If git would automatically do the dates then one could download 
the source code. Git would be the central repository and if one 
wanted an offline version that had enough info in it such as the 
data a change was made, who changed it, the date the file was 
generated etc, then it would be better than having nothing.

To throw the baby out with the bath water is wrong.

Special comments could be used so they could easily be removed if 
desired along with any necessary information such as the library 
version, dates the code was changed, etc. No need to include 
everything. Some information is better than none, that is always 
the case. Data(knowledge) can't hurt you, only the lack of it.

The thing is, none of this shit hurts anything. Comments don't 
change programs so really it is just an issue about bloat and 
rot. The rot is covered by git hub automatically generating all 
the info(then it becomes no different than the problem of 
versioning with everything, want an update, just download it from 
git). The bloat is minimum and the bloat is precisely valid 
information(it's not like it is gibberish).

So, for people to pretend that this is evil and shouldn't be done 
just because they feel it is not as good as using git directly is 
really moronic. What they are saying is "Because git hub has it 
all we shouldn't go the extra step to provide partial 
information". But the problem with such logic is git up is not 
always available and not everyone wants to go that route. So, 
instead of a compromise these people want to enforce some 
absolute law that they imagined they can enforce(some people 
murder over such things, just to show you how bad it can get).

It's one thing to say that it shouldn't be done because no one 
thinks it's important(e.g., almost everyone uses git hub) and 
quite a different thing to dictate some fictitious authoritative 
dictator persona as if the dictator is god and knows everything.

30 years ago if asked most programmers about starting a git hub 
they would laugh at you and tell you it is not needed.  The sad 
fact is that most people have no clue what is actually needed and 
what is good and what is bad. They just follow the asses in front 
of them, usually, eventually, over a cliff.