for what it's worth, i don't have a strong opinion on this issue (i.e.,
whether to use @asf.todo or TODO); i explained below why i made the original
change, and, yes, it was not discussed at the time;

the point i was making below, which you echo, is that is indeed better to
first discuss a change that undoes a set of changes than to slip it by,
perhaps unnoticed; in the future, were i to be granted committer status, i
certainly would not want to simply commit a change that undoes the work of
another committer, at least without some discussion and consensus taking;

g.

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>wrote:

> It would indeed have been better to first have a discussion and then
> make the change. @asf.todo is specific enough that we could have
> changed it at any time. That said, Glenn's change was also made
> without a discussion. My javadoc does not complain about the @todo
> tag, and I had not understood that this was a motivation.
>
> The javadoc documentation (of my sun-java6-jdk) is not clear about
> this topic, and uses @todo liberally in its section about the -tag
> option. Its most informative paragraph is this:
>
> "Avoiding Conflicts - If you want to slice out your own namespace, you
> can use a dot-separated naming convention similar to that used for
> packages: com.mycompany.todo. Sun will continue to create standard
> tags whose names do not contain dots. Any tag you create will override
> the behavior of a tag by the same name defined by Sun. In other words,
> if you create a tag or taglet @todo, it will always have the same
> behavior you define, even if Sun later creates a standard tag of the
> same name."
>
> which does not even go so far as to discourage the @todo tag. It is
> also not clear how a todo tag would be a specific asf tag, different
> from the todo tag of any other organization. Everybody uses todo and
> means the same with it.
>
> Using the widely recognized TODO keyword circumvents the tag question
> altogether, but is outdated since the advent of tags.
>
> Let us discuss this and not waste effort on undoing each other's
> expression of their point of view. Let us also not forget that working
> in a team requires compromises; the code will never match your own
> conventions and preferences as precisely as code in your very own
> project. This is more so in an open project with a long history and a
> large set of authors.
>
> Simon
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 09:28:06AM +0800, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > Vincent,
> >
> > Could you explain your rationale for this change? Originally, these were
> all
> > marked with a non-standard '@todo' javadoc tag, which javadoc complained
> > about, indicating that for "non-standard" tags, there should be at least
> one
> > '.' present in the tag name. I had fixed this by adding the "asf."
> prefix,
> > which still allowed tracking these in javadoc more easily. However, your
> > change now removes the utility of the tag.
> >
> > On a more general point, wouldn't it be more useful to have a discussion
> > about stylistic changes prior to implementing them? Just so we can get on
> > the same page?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Glenn
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM, <vhenneb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Author: vhennebert
> > > Date: Fri Aug 27 13:31:41 2010
> > > New Revision: 990148
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=990148&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > Replaced @asf.todo with normal TODO comment
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Simon Pepping
> home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
>

Reply via email to