On 13.4.12 11:18, Angela Schreiber wrote:
hi just found in the mk API that the usage of revision isn't completely consistent: - 'revision number' -> revision id was probably more appropriate - 'revision' when referring to a String -> i would suggest to use again 'revision id' and consequently only use 'revision' when really referring to the revision. example: MicroKernel#getHeadRevision String MicroKernel#waitForCommit (fixed in rev. 1325699) - there are cases where the API/javadoc refers to a revision but in fact it means some sort of revision-info that consists of revisionID + time stamp example: MicroKernel#getRevisions, javadoc of #getJournal what do you think? was this worth being addressed?
Yes definitely. Since there might be other implementations of that API against different back ends we should be very clear here. See also OAK-11.
Michael
angela
