Tim Ellison wrote: >>>Agreed. It would be interesting to determine the most effective >>>location for those markers (measured by reverse mapping accuracy vs. >>>number of markers). >> >>I am a fan of accuracy... Yet, maybe it would be simple enough if a >>release was always based on a specific svn URL, then the mark could be >>totally exact using svn keywords... :-) > > > You lost me here. I'm trying to define tie-points between the > 'releasetarget' source and the canonical form. AIUI this will require > structured comments in the 'releasetarget', right?
Heh! I'm proposing another "unusual" markup that would be least intrusive. I'm proposing to simply use "precise svn url/version identification" as markup: file:XXX.java ------------- /* * @ProcessIdentification(j2se,release) * @ProcessURL(https://svn.apache.org/repos/harmony/somepath/XXX.java) * @ProcessRevision(144) * * This tells us that this file is the result of: * process(svn cat -r revision url, j2serelease) */ /* releasetarget code, WITHOUT any additional markup:-) */ ... ... As long as we are *sure* that the releasetarget code was built from precisely that url/version (without any "local workspace" modification) then it should be as precise as having markups everywhere in the source code. :-) Of course, this adds a (small?) dependence on Subversion, but the gains in markup noise reduction seems to be worth the trouble. Etienne -- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
