//TODO is unstructured. @todo fits into an existing syntax, viz. that of javadoc tags. Output in javadocs can be suppressed by '-tag todo:X'.
My preference is therefore a javadoc tag, @todo. But I am not going to make a case of this. +0. Simon On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:02:29PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Ok, let me summarise this: > > ??? a @[asf.]todo tag marginally improves the formatting of a javadoc > comment > ??? nobody really likes the idea of using a namespaced version of todo > (@asf.todo) > ??? it is possible to tweak Checkstyle and the javadoc command to enable > the use of @todo > > That said: > ??? todo statements generally have little to do (sic) in a javadoc comment > anyway > ??? TODO keywords are easily indexable by modern IDEs > > Jeremias recommends the Felix way: using //TODO comments below the > javadoc. I???m also strongly in favour of this convention. OTOH, if I???m > correct nobody strongly feels that @todo tags are necessary. > > So I think we have a consensus: > ??? from now on we stop using @todo in favour of the Felix convention; > ??? we will progressively remove TODO statements from javadoc comments and > move them below in their own Java // comments > ??? I remove the definition of the custom tag from build.xml > > Let me know if I missed anything. -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu