Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about something else. My mistake!
On 3 December 2012 10:42, Josh Soref <jso...@rim.com> wrote: > Tim Kim wrote: > > Is it? > > I keep seeing questions being popped up about people looking for > webworks.js > > even if they developing for bb5-7/playbook. > > Usually they are trying it in ripple and errors out when it can't find > it so it leads to some confusion. > > I wrote: > | <!-- Don't worry about js/webworks.js if you're aren't > developing for bb10 --> > > Here the comment says "js/webworks.js" > > | - <script type="text/javascript" src="js/webworks.js"></script> > > Here the code used to say "js/webworks.js", at which point the code and > comment agreed. > > | + <script type="text/javascript" > src="local:///chrome/webworks.js"></script> > > This change caused the comment to no longer be in sync with the code, as > it now says "local:///chrome/webworks.js". Anyone looking for > "js/webworks.js" in the code won't find it. > > This is roughly a reminder to people "please don't forget to update > comments when you change nearby lines of code", this applies both to > comments which are visible in diff -U3 and in comments which aren't visible > in diff -U3, although from my perspective it should have been spotted by a > reviewer since it was visible in this case.... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential > information, privileged material (including material protected by the > solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public > information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, > please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from > your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this > transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. > -- Timothy Kim
