+1 to “gemFire x.y.z” Adding the GemFire makes it obvious where the feature came from, no inference required as would happen if we left just a version number for old @since annotations.
Ken > On Apr 25, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > +1 for @since Geode 1.0.0 > > If we keep the pre-existing @since tags, then I'd prefer to add "GemFire" > to them for better clarity. Thus, @since 4.0.0 would be changed to @since > GemFire 4.0.0. Just my preference. > > -Kirk > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Sai Boorlagadda <sboorlaga...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> +1 for Geode 1.0.0 >> >> And we can leave current @since tags as-is with out "GemFire" to denote >> predate Geode. >> So if you see "Geode x.y.z" => added in Geode >> or "x.y.z" => Predate to Geode (i.e.,) >> GemFire. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >>> +1 for @since Geode 1.0.0. >>> >>> @since GemFire x.y.z is probably not all that useful from a Geode >>> perspective, but maybe important in GemFire source, particularly for >>> features that maybe specific to GemFire, or predate Geode. >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Dan Smith <upthewatersp...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We have a lot of @since tags in our javadocs with old gemfire >>>> versions. I think we are going to keep them in there, we should maybe >>>> do a sweep and add gemfire to the version: >>>> >>>> Eg >>>> @since GemFire 5.5 >>>> >>>> For geode @since tags, we can start from 1.0: >>>> @since 1.0 >>>> >>>> Or maybe it would be better to be explicit? >>>> @since Geode 1.0 >>>> >>>> What do you guys think? >>>> -Dan >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -John >>> 503-504-8657 >>> john.blum10101 (skype) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sai Boorlagadda >>
