--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > From: Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r926912 - in > /ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/src/org/ofbiz/base: concurrent/ concurrent/test/ > conversion/ conversion/test/ json/ json/test/ lang/ lang/test/ util/ > util/collections/ util/collections/test/ util/string/ util/string/test/ > util/test/ > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 8:55 PM > On 23/03/2010, at 9:46 PM, Adam Heath > wrote: > > > Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 23/03/2010, at 9:37 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> > >>> Scott Gray wrote: > >>>> This seems important, could you explain > how it works a little more? > >>> There was a thread about this recently, where > I announced which > >>> classes had full coverage. This > annotation just means that the > >>> person(s) listed in the annotation are > monitoring the source. That > >>> means that those people might be who to turn > too if there are > >>> questions on how the code works. > >> > >> But what does it do functionally? How would > it be different from: > >> // "Don't mess up my code buddy!" signed Adam > Heath > > > > Shows up in javadoc. > > Got it > > > > > The retention policy could be changed to to Runtime, > so that a test > > case that fails could report something automatically. > > Doesn't buildbot do that for us already? > > > Remember, annotations are easier to access > programatically. > > My only concern is that we removed all author information > when we moved to Apache and this feels very similar to > it. I understand you're not claiming authorship but it > does feel kind of implied.
Maybe there could be some indirection where the annotation could contain a mailing list group or some such.
