pre-commit hooks and $Id$ banners?

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Martin Pool wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2006, Jamie Wilkinson <jaq at spacepants.org> wrote:
>
>> Sure it's pedantic, but it's a necessary part of QA and software engineering
>> to be able to accurately describe the source code at any discreet point in
>> time.
>
>This is arguably a reason to commit the text exactly as it is in the
>working tree, without doing unexpansion of tags.  So typically the
>revision will be committed with the *previous* version of the tags,
>because that's what they had when the commit command was typed.  All
>expansion would be done at the moment of building/updating the working

... and that feels wrong because now the revision you put in is not the
revision you get out.

>tree, which allows for you to later disable that, and get back the
>precise previous contents.

>On the other hand by enabling tags for a particular file the user has
>pretty much that they allow the file to vary there.

I'm only +0.005 for adding expandos, if they're disabled by default; I still
think it's a lot of code maintenance overhead for very little gain.