Discussions around IncludeRevisionPlugin

If I only want to reference by revision number and not by date, are the diffs necessary in my case?

-- JonReid - 08 Nov 2001

I'm not sure if I understand completely, but if you use %INCLUDEREV{Web.TopicPage,1.3}% it will include using the revision # instead of date

-- JustinHickman - 13 Nov 2001

I mean, would I need to incorporate Store.diff and TWiki-cfg.diff, or could I leave them as-is and still have the plugin work for references by revision?

-- JonReid - 13 Nov 2001

In order to use this plugin, you would need to patch Store.pm and TWiki.cfg. The patch for TWiki.cfg is just changing the command-line call to the rcs co program. co already has support for dates as well as the revision numbers.

Store.pm also needs to be modified because it's dealing with how the rcs works too. Take a look at the diffs and you will see the minor changes that were made.

Even if you choose to not use this plugin after you patch the files, TWiki will work the same reguardless, since the changes wrap over the existing code. I didn't take anything out, just added to the functionality.

-- JustinHickman - 13 Nov 2001

Users can get confused because the uncommon syntax. I suggest to redefine the syntax from %INCLUDEREV{Web.TopicPage,1.3}% to %INCLUDEREV{"Web.TopicPage" rev="1.3"}%. You can use TWiki::Func::extractNameValuePair().

-- PeterThoeny - 16 Aug 2002

Actually, I think, this should be core features:
%INCLUDE{"topic" rev="1.2"}%
%INCLUDE{"topic" date="2002/09/05 00:00"}%
%INCLUDE{"topic" form="insert"}% proposed in IncludeWithFormData

And, most important: if you specificallly refer to an older page revision, like ../view/Web/FooBar?rev=1.3, then it makes absolutely no sense to display the current versions of the includes. View with a given revision should imply included files with a cutoff date equal to the including file's revision. (As a first shot, the date="..." parameter could simply support "$Date: 2004/11/20 09:11:56 $" as parameter value. This way, RCS would fill in the precise date for you.)

-- PeterKlausner 4.Sep.2002

I agree, with perhaps the caveat that all of INCLUDE should be pushed out into a plugin.

-- MartinCleaver - 07 Jun 2003