Considering this has been there in several files for a while, and it really does not affect anyone that does not want to use the extra one line of information on the top of the java file. Why not let other that see some benefits on this to use it ?
I'm still +1 on this. On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark Combellack wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
