I'd be tempted to use the CVS revision number for file version and James or Mailet build version for @since
Try putting this in to make CVS update the version number itself.. $Id$ it is replaced with something like this: (this actually gives a lot of information, the file DDL2XML.java is in revision 1.5, commited by me on 25 march at five to three) $Id: DDL2XML.java,v 1.5 2003/03/25 14:54:15 danny Exp $ which appears as "Version: $Id: DDL2XML.java,v 1.5 2003/03/25 14:54:15 danny Exp $" in the javadocs. d. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 June 2003 11:20 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: New Redirect & sons becoming available > > > > > One general question: I have not seen any @since and very few @version > > > javadoc tags in the James code. Wouldn't it be useful? I tend to > > > use it very > > > consistently in my code. > > > > Then use it here :-) > > OK. I had not done it right because nobody was doing it, and > didn't want to look "fanatic" :-) > > Which "policy" to use to be consistent? I imagine using the James > version (the build in "in preparation" - currently 2.2.0) for > @version in any modified java source, and inserting the related > @since for any new one. Or there is any other numbering scheme > being used that would make sense? Looking in CVS I see one, which > is the rationale being used? > > Thank you for the +1 :-) > > Vincenzo > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
