+1 2 reasons - * In general I think such information encourages thoughts of "code ownership", * It also seems that this information is poorly maintained. Many @author tags are simply incorrect because they were copied from another file without checking and updating them...
-----Original Message----- From: David E. Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: VOTE: suppress svn keywords and keyword expansion It looks like the opinions about this are not nearly as strong as the opinions of the format of the log files... ;) My thought is that the reason for this is that fewer people deal with and/or use these details in the source files. Here are my thoughts on this: 1. these SVN keywords are an inconvenience to developers (especially the core committers who frequently deal with manual patching because of them), and are meant to be helpful for users of the code 2. it appears that users of the code typically do not care much about these or find them of use So, let's toss them! Unless there is significant objection I'll update the APACHE2_HEADER file, and we can incorporate this into the current header change effort and such. BTW, removing @author tags I think is just fine. There doesn't seem to be any objection to this either, so let's go for it. In general I think such information encourages thoughts of "code ownership", which is a negative thing in such a project as OFBiz. It also seems that this information is poorly maintained. Many @author tags are simply incorrect because they were copied from another file without checking and updating them... -David Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm asking you to vote on this subject now because some times ago, in a > thread named "SVN keywords" (started by me in this list on 3/25/2006) we > discussed about the pros and cons of suppressing svn keywords expansion > in source files. > > Removing svn keywords from source files means both the keywords > themselves (such as $Id, $Rev etc...) and the svn:keywords property that > is responsible for keywords expansion. > > The main reason is to avoid merging/import problems, but also because, > in my opinion, this kind of meta information is better managed in svn logs. > > For more details, have a look at the original thread: > http://lists.ofbiz.org/pipermail/dev/2006-March/010349.html > > My vote is: > > +1 > > Jacopo
