Mark Combellack wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Mark Combellack wrote:
Hi,
I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
JavaDoc
headers but others do not.
As an example, @version might look like:
/**
* Some JavaDoc for the class
*
* @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
2007) $
*/
I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
where
it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
problem with me doing this at this time.
I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
Thanks,
Mark
I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
are with this?
I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
break anything...
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a
"consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this subject.
In summary of this thread, we have:
+1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
ant prefers not to do this
Simon says he would find it useful.
I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which
an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following
in reply:
"Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable.
Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having
the same information within the file itself."
So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also,
my experience today with patch application indicates that there can
be a downside.
From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not
to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change.
We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying
to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. I'd prefer to turn
the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given
that the information is so easily available by other means.
Simon
I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this
week.
Thanks,
Mark
