On 15 October 2011 16:27, Oliver Heger <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 15.10.2011 16:03, schrieb Gary Gregory: >> >> Can checkstyle be set up to check for author tags? > > Yes, it can. In [configuration] there is the following setup: > > <module name="JavadocType"> > <property name="authorFormat" value="\S"/> > </module> > > This means that the @author tag must be present with an arbitrary value. The > value can even be matched against a regular expression. For details refer to > [1].
That looks as if it can check for absent or incorrectly formatted tags. But I think we want the opposite, i.e. the tag either needs to be absent, or, if present, must only be ASF or Commons or whatever group name we use. > Oliver > > [1] http://checkstyle.sf.net/config_javadoc.html > >> >> Gary >> >> On Oct 15, 2011, at 9:53, sebb<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 15 October 2011 14:06, Gary Gregory<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> There was an ASF guideline or suggestion a couple of years ago to use >>>> "Apache Software Foundation" in author tags. >>> >>> Not that I remember. >>> >>> The board recommendation [1] was to not use @author tags at all. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/board_minutes_2004_09_22.txt >>> Section 7, subsection F >>> >>> Using @author ASF probably does not go against the spirit of the >>> recommendation; I just don't see the point. >>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2011, at 8:17, Emmanuel Bourg<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> -0 on the @author tag since I'm not involved in OGNL. >>>>> >>>>> I find it a bit rude to remove the signature from someone else work. >>>>> But >>>>> feel free to remove your own name. >>>>> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 15/10/2011 10:59, Christian Grobmeier a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, the old discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> OGNL has @author tags. I do not like them. Who wants to keep them? I >>>>>> prefer a developers section in the pom and of course there is svn >>>>>> history. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition: >>>>>> * $Id: ASTAdd.java 1183232 2011-10-14 07:40:32Z grobmeier $ >>>>>> >>>>>> This line must not be the first of the license header, otherwise >>>>>> checkstyle is crying. In addition I have never understood the sense of >>>>>> that line. I am +1 for removing it too (svn history does all i need). >>>>>> >>>>>> If we keep it, we need to move it on class level docs. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, let the rumble begin... your opinions gents! >>>>>> >>>>>> CHeers >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
