+1 for having on explicit GemFire and Geode
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +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 > >> > >
