I just thought I would homogenize our usage of todo tags and match what
seems to be the de facto standard (“TODO”) among current committers.
Most @todo indeed come from very old commits. I didn’t realise that
javadoc could do something with them, which is why that looked to me
like a minor change that wasn’t needing prior discussion. Sorry about

Ok, so there is something that can be done out of @todo tags in javadoc
comments. Now, having to use our own namespaced version is unfortunate
and looks overkill to me. Just to have a slightly better formatted
javadoc? Are such comments of any use to users of the API anyway? Most
of them rather look like pure internal development issues and should
probably not even appear in the javadoc.

Also, while @todo tags can be indexed, modern IDEs can index plain TODO
tokens as well, so that reduces the advantage of @asf.todo IMO.

If there are strong feelings against the removal of @asf.todo, I’ll
revert the change. Otherwise, I’ll actually complete it by removing the
definition of the custom tag in build.xml, which I hadn’t spotted.


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 altogether, but is outdated since the advent of tags.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, <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

Reply via email to