On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 07:04, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see that Guido is not keen on the idea, and I'm not sure my > > observations help sway things one way or the other. OTOH, it would be > > nice if at least we always add our own identifier (initials, nick, email > > address) and a date to the XXX so we at least know who was talking about > > what. > > I find it fairly easy to use "svn annotate" to learn about the source > of an XXX comment. In many cases, the XXX comment is fairly obvious, > anyway, so knowing who added it, and when, doesn't provide much useful > information. > Ah, but that's not true in Subversion: you just see who committed the XXX comment, not who wrote it :-) I've been using the XXX(twouters) approach for a while and it's pretty convenient because who wrote the comment changes how you interpret the comment. See for instance r42313 and r42717 of Python/ceval.c: if I'd known the original comment was added by Jeremy, I would have interpreted the question correctly the first time around. (As it was, Jeremy came up to me at PyCon, I think :) -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
