On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. ++Vamsi 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 > > > > > > >
