Fantastic news ant :-) Thanks for your offer of help to update the templates. I appreciate that.
All we need now is SVN commit access and I can get started. Thanks, Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: ant elder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 April 2008 13:54 > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files > > Yes i think we have consensus to do this now, and as a sign of good faith > i'll help by (as soon as we get SVN write access back) adding the keywords > to the IDE templates we have in SVN and adding text to the developer guide > on what is required to set up our SVN clients to correctly set the svn > properties on new files. > > ...ant > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Mark Combellack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > It looks like the discussions on adding SVN version to Java files has > gone > > quiet again so I'll give it a little prod :-) > > > > Previously, the question was asked as to what was the justification for > > adding the SVN version. I hope I have answered this question > > satisfactorily. > > > > > > Generally people seemed to be happy with adding SVN version to the Java > > files. However, ant, would prefer not to do this. > > > > ant, has the recent justification emails provided you with enough of a > > reason to convince you that they should be added? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mark Combellack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 24 April 2008 09:55 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > The main reasons that I like the SVN details in the header of the > files > > > include: > > > > > > > > > > > > * You can look at the source file and see what revision it is > > > without having to use SVN commands > > > > > > * Typically, developers will do an SVN checkout of the code > > using > > > SVN so they can get the information via SVN commands or via the > headers > > > > > > * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source > code > > > and > > > will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar > file > > > containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command > to > > > work > > > out which versions of source code they are running > > > > > > * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are > > > developers > > > > > > * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as > > part > > > of > > > a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will > contain > > > the > > > SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the > > > revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the > > > revision > > > number in these scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The nice thing about the SVN keyword substitution is that a Developer > is > > > free to choose whether they want them or not as the expansion is done > on > > > the > > > client side. If a Developer wants the $Date$ and $Revision$ expanded, > > then > > > they have to update their SVN configuration to do so. If they do not, > > then > > > they don't need to do anything as it is disabled in SVN by default. > The > > > key > > > thing is that @version $Date$ $Revision$ is in the header to provide > > this > > > choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the end of the day, from my personal opinion, using @version $Date$ > > > $Revision$ is a nice to have feature in the source code. I would like > to > > > have it there. However, I would rather go without it if its presence > is > > > going to cause disharmony amongst the Tuscany Developers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04 > > > > > > > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to know the last revision and date at which a > particular > > > file > > > > > > > is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having > > to > > > do > > > > > > > anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, > > opening > > > a > > > > > > > command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I > > have > > > > > > > need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a > > release > > > > > > > downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while > > > > > > > investigating JIRAs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ++Vamsi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging > > > > > > > > consensus > > > > > > > > but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread > > that > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead > > > trying > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > convince us by explaining the value of adding this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
