I’m assuming you meant to comment on the last post about flashbake.
In the first place, I am not working all that hard. Also, these scripts were originally written for a single user so bear in mind they are tailored to his very specific requirements. I did consider solutions like the one you suggested but discarded them as not a good match for what was being asked. Our joint decision to share the code on the off chance anyone else had similar, very specific requirements, has invited criticism in the form of why re-invent the wheel. I do not believe this reinvents the wheel and even if it does, who does it harm?
Certainly, documenting how it stacks up against alternatives, like what you suggest will help the most with informed decisions on the part of potential users.
If all that was wanted was seamless auto versioning, then what you suggest would be suitable. I didn’t believe the additional setup cost here was justified. SVN provides commit hooks, so a viable alternative building on your idea, for someone who doesn’t mind the setup involved with WebDAV, would be to wire flashbake into SVN’s commit hooks, assuming you can alter or replace the commit message from these hooks.
The original request was for a git plugin for gedit, which is something I may also explore. The emphasis of flashbake is on the contents of the commit message, not necessarily how the commit is invoked. My focus at the moment is the plugin system to give users more flexibility in how the commit message is composed. I have about half a dozen users, some who may choose others means than cron to drive flashbake so no doubt documentation around alternate deployments will arise.