Of the three options: 1. @todo 2. @asf.todo 3. //TODO
I prefer @todo, even if it means having a javadoc warning, but perhaps that warning can be suppressed. G. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>wrote: > //TODO is unstructured. @todo fits into an existing syntax, viz. that > of javadoc tags. Output in javadocs can be suppressed by '-tag > todo:X'. > > My preference is therefore a javadoc tag, @todo. But I am not going to > make a case of this. > > +0. > > Simon > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:02:29PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > > Ok, let me summarise this: > > > > ??? a @[asf.]todo tag marginally improves the formatting of a javadoc > > comment > > ??? nobody really likes the idea of using a namespaced version of todo > > (@asf.todo) > > ??? it is possible to tweak Checkstyle and the javadoc command to enable > > the use of @todo > > > > That said: > > ??? todo statements generally have little to do (sic) in a javadoc > comment > > anyway > > ??? TODO keywords are easily indexable by modern IDEs > > > > Jeremias recommends the Felix way: using //TODO comments below the > > javadoc. I???m also strongly in favour of this convention. OTOH, if I???m > > correct nobody strongly feels that @todo tags are necessary. > > > > So I think we have a consensus: > > ??? from now on we stop using @todo in favour of the Felix convention; > > ??? we will progressively remove TODO statements from javadoc comments > and > > move them below in their own Java // comments > > ??? I remove the definition of the custom tag from build.xml > > > > Let me know if I missed anything. > > -- > Simon Pepping > home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu >
