A little over a year ago we instituted a new policy within our dev team: placing a comment header at the top of every new (or revised) template. This comment header states what the template is, what it is used for, who originally created the file (if known) and a 'revision' listing. Every time a template is revised a notation was added to this header, with initials and date stamp, as to the purpose of the revision. This didn't replace line level comments to explain blocks of code, only augmented the process so that a total document change overview was available in an easy to review location.
Recently we finally moved to a version control system, Subversion. This is a huge step for us, that is long overdue, and allows us to finally begin working as an enterprise level team. Very important with a 3,000+ template system. But, currently I am in a minor debate with our Development Manager, as well as a few members of our team. They believe that we should no longer use our revision comment system, since Subversion is setup to require a comment on commit. Their argument is that you can easily pull the 'history' of a document from Subversion.
But, like any good team, the issue is open for debate. No one has layed down new policy in stone yet. I asked if I could put the question out to the community-at-large, to get an idea of how others handle this situation and try to learn from the experiences of those who've traveled this road before. How do you handle this? How would you/should you handle this?