by way of an amusing anecdote on this point, when I was managing the Unix
servers at the MIT AI Lab in the mid 80's I got in a bit of a contest with
RMS (richard stallman) about his liberal sharing of his login credentials
with literally *anyone* that asked; one day i found about 100 incoming FTP
sessions on his account, all coming from elsewhere, the world over; it had
dragged down the network and the vax 750 host, so I decided to take drastic
action (after having first asked him to desist, which he ignored); so i
modified the code of the FTP server to refuse more than one connection on
his account; the next day i found another 100 or so sessions, so I checked
the FTP server code: my changes were gone, with a comment left in place
"Glenn, don't bother changing this again... RMS"; at that point, i gave up,
realizing we could just continue changing it back and forth to no end;

let's avoid that same problem here;


p.s. incidentally, it was that same vax 750 that the very first "internet
worm" was introduced to (by Robert Morris Jr) a few years later, in
November, 1988; i guess that was an inevitable follow on...

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:

> 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 <>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, <> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Author: vhennebert
>> > > Date: Fri Aug 27 13:31:41 2010
>> > > New Revision: 990148
>> > >
>> > > URL:
>> > > Log:
>> > > Replaced @asf.todo with normal TODO comment
>> > >
>> > >
>> --
>> Simon Pepping
>> home page:

Reply via email to