Hi, Niall, thanks for stepping in for me. It felt harsh to me too to see the veto, especially when having the the committers guide [1] in mind that states "In extreme situations, it may be necessary to veto (-1) a commit but please beware that this is an extreme sanction and rarely warranted." This maybe why I reacted a bit petulantly at first. Nevertheless Sebb usually takes a close look at commits and I think this is very important for the quality of the code base.
Mark, thanks for pointing out what we need the keywords for. Before I read your mail I always thought they just replicate meta data that is available through the SVN client. Now I see why it is important to have the $Id$ in place. Benedikt [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html 2013/3/8 Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> Author: britter > >>>> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013 > >>>> New Revision: 1452037 > >>>> > >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037 > >>>> Log: > >>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords > >>> > >>> -1 > >>> > >>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and > >>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives. > > > > <snip/> > > > >> It is also an > >> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a > >> question of style. > > > > I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one. > > Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source > > tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting > > on releases. > > This IMO is not a technical justification, but a bureaucratic one and > I still believe casting a veto on documentation style is not valid > IMO. > > > One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a > > release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different > > client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file > > different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every > > file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling > > the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated. > > Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice > thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has > been created from the tag - otherwise we trust our release managers. > BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember > it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being > released. But back to the main point here, I don't object to anyone > with the desire to do this making the change - but I do disagree with > it being a veto. > > Niall > > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
