To revisit some of the earlier discussions regarding this:
o We don't include author, because it's accessible from the CVS log
o Since we can also find out the date from the CVS log, there's no point in having that in the source code as well
It seemed to be the case that using $Date$ was therefore redundant, because you could easily find out how old the source was from CVS.
[See earlier discussions, and reasoning on $Revision$ instead of $Id$, which is basically Revision/Date/Author/whatever]
Alex.
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 09:39 Europe/London, Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
+1 on including the $Date$
On 8/13/03 11:38 PM, "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we make a decision on this?
Either:
@version $Revision$ $Date$
or:
@version $Revision$
Personally I like to see how old the file is from the JavaDocs, but really I care more about what the final decision is, I will go either way.
--jason
PS. Once we decide I will clean up my sources ;-)
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 01:59 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jeremy Boynes said:
JB>> I actually prefer the following because it cantains all I need: JB>> JB>> @version $Id$ JB> JB>We opted against $Id$ during the import to avoid having the username in JB>there (the @author thing).
I should have made a note about that because as I sent the message I realized that for that reason alone I can understand why we didn't use $Id$.
+1 for @version $Revision$ $Date$
Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
The Castor Project http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo.html
-- Richard Monson-Haefel Co-Founder\Developer, Apache Geronimo Author of: J2EE Web Services (AW 2003) Enterprise JavaBeans, 4ed (O'Reilly 2004) Java Message Service (O'Reilly 2000) http://www.Monson-Haefel.com
