RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Hi, It looks like the discussions on adding SVN version to Java files has gone quiet again so I'll give it a little prod :-) Previously, the question was asked as to what was the justification for adding the SVN version. I hope I have answered this question satisfactorily. Generally people seemed to be happy with adding SVN version to the Java files. However, ant, would prefer not to do this. ant, has the recent justification emails provided you with enough of a reason to convince you that they should be added? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Combellack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 09:55 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files Hi, The main reasons that I like the SVN details in the header of the files include: * You can look at the source file and see what revision it is without having to use SVN commands * Typically, developers will do an SVN checkout of the code using SVN so they can get the information via SVN commands or via the headers * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source code and will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar file containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command to work out which versions of source code they are running * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are developers * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as part of a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will contain the SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the revision number in these scenarios. The nice thing about the SVN keyword substitution is that a Developer is free to choose whether they want them or not as the expansion is done on the client side. If a Developer wants the $Date$ and $Revision$ expanded, then they have to update their SVN configuration to do so. If they do not, then they don't need to do anything as it is disabled in SVN by default. The key thing is that @version $Date$ $Revision$ is in the header to provide this choice. At the end of the day, from my personal opinion, using @version $Date$ $Revision$ is a nice to have feature in the source code. I would like to have it there. However, I would rather go without it if its presence is going to cause disharmony amongst the Tuscany Developers. Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files I would like to know the last revision and date at which a particular file is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having to do anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, opening a command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I have need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a release downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while investigating JIRAs. ++Vamsi On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging consensus but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread that there is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead trying to convince us by explaining the value of adding this? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Yes i think we have consensus to do this now, and as a sign of good faith i'll help by (as soon as we get SVN write access back) adding the keywords to the IDE templates we have in SVN and adding text to the developer guide on what is required to set up our SVN clients to correctly set the svn properties on new files. ...ant On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It looks like the discussions on adding SVN version to Java files has gone quiet again so I'll give it a little prod :-) Previously, the question was asked as to what was the justification for adding the SVN version. I hope I have answered this question satisfactorily. Generally people seemed to be happy with adding SVN version to the Java files. However, ant, would prefer not to do this. ant, has the recent justification emails provided you with enough of a reason to convince you that they should be added? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Combellack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 09:55 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files Hi, The main reasons that I like the SVN details in the header of the files include: * You can look at the source file and see what revision it is without having to use SVN commands * Typically, developers will do an SVN checkout of the code using SVN so they can get the information via SVN commands or via the headers * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source code and will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar file containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command to work out which versions of source code they are running * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are developers * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as part of a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will contain the SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the revision number in these scenarios. The nice thing about the SVN keyword substitution is that a Developer is free to choose whether they want them or not as the expansion is done on the client side. If a Developer wants the $Date$ and $Revision$ expanded, then they have to update their SVN configuration to do so. If they do not, then they don't need to do anything as it is disabled in SVN by default. The key thing is that @version $Date$ $Revision$ is in the header to provide this choice. At the end of the day, from my personal opinion, using @version $Date$ $Revision$ is a nice to have feature in the source code. I would like to have it there. However, I would rather go without it if its presence is going to cause disharmony amongst the Tuscany Developers. Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files I would like to know the last revision and date at which a particular file is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having to do anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, opening a command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I have need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a release downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while investigating JIRAs. ++Vamsi On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging consensus but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread that there is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead trying to convince us by explaining the value of adding this? ...ant
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Fantastic news ant :-) Thanks for your offer of help to update the templates. I appreciate that. All we need now is SVN commit access and I can get started. Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: ant elder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 April 2008 13:54 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Yes i think we have consensus to do this now, and as a sign of good faith i'll help by (as soon as we get SVN write access back) adding the keywords to the IDE templates we have in SVN and adding text to the developer guide on what is required to set up our SVN clients to correctly set the svn properties on new files. ...ant On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It looks like the discussions on adding SVN version to Java files has gone quiet again so I'll give it a little prod :-) Previously, the question was asked as to what was the justification for adding the SVN version. I hope I have answered this question satisfactorily. Generally people seemed to be happy with adding SVN version to the Java files. However, ant, would prefer not to do this. ant, has the recent justification emails provided you with enough of a reason to convince you that they should be added? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Combellack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 09:55 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files Hi, The main reasons that I like the SVN details in the header of the files include: * You can look at the source file and see what revision it is without having to use SVN commands * Typically, developers will do an SVN checkout of the code using SVN so they can get the information via SVN commands or via the headers * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source code and will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar file containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command to work out which versions of source code they are running * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are developers * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as part of a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will contain the SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the revision number in these scenarios. The nice thing about the SVN keyword substitution is that a Developer is free to choose whether they want them or not as the expansion is done on the client side. If a Developer wants the $Date$ and $Revision$ expanded, then they have to update their SVN configuration to do so. If they do not, then they don't need to do anything as it is disabled in SVN by default. The key thing is that @version $Date$ $Revision$ is in the header to provide this choice. At the end of the day, from my personal opinion, using @version $Date$ $Revision$ is a nice to have feature in the source code. I would like to have it there. However, I would rather go without it if its presence is going to cause disharmony amongst the Tuscany Developers. Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files I would like to know the last revision and date at which a particular file is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having to do anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, opening a command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I have need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a release downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while investigating JIRAs. ++Vamsi On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. We do consensus
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source code and will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar file containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command to work out which versions of source code they are running * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are developers * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as part of a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will contain the SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the revision number in these scenarios. From what everyone has said so far the above seem like the only real justification for where these might be useful, and I'm sceptical whether users really would care or use these as from what i've seen they say things like it broke in 1.1 or it worked last week and don't go down to mentioning individual class files let alone revisions of the file, and usually don't post whole class files to bug reports. Anyway, I'm obviously in a minority on this so if everyone else really really wants to add these i wont get in the way. How would that work - it would be manditory to add them to each new file and everyone must have their SVN client configured so the correct SVN properties get set? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Regarding whether or not we have consensus and whether we should hold a vote, consensus is not the same as unanimity. I think we need to make a decision on this issue (which is relatively minor) and move forward. Holding a vote seems to be a reasonable way to do this. Consensus is not the same as unanimity but that doesn't mean voting is the way to resolve disagreements, you just have to look at the trouble doing that has caused in the project when its happened in the past. A definition I like for consensus is: A decision making process whereby decisions are reached when all members present consent to a proposal. This process does not assume everyone must be in complete agreement. When differences remain after discussion, individuals can agree to disagree, that is, give their consent by standing aside, and allow the proposal to be accepted by the group. If someone who's an important part of the project (ie a PMC member?) doesn't agree with something enough to refuse to stand aside then maybe in most cases its best to just find another way. Thats one of the reasons I think we should be a bit discerning about who we make PMC members - so that we trust each other enough to know it most cases we would stand aside and if we wont then for everyone to be able to respect that. ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
I would like to know the last revision and date at which a particular file is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having to do anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, opening a command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I have need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a release downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while investigating JIRAs. ++Vamsi On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging consensus but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread that there is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead trying to convince us by explaining the value of adding this? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, The main reasons that I like the SVN details in the header of the files include: * You can look at the source file and see what revision it is without having to use SVN commands * Typically, developers will do an SVN checkout of the code using SVN so they can get the information via SVN commands or via the headers * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source code and will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar file containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command to work out which versions of source code they are running * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are developers * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as part of a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will contain the SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the revision number in these scenarios. The nice thing about the SVN keyword substitution is that a Developer is free to choose whether they want them or not as the expansion is done on the client side. If a Developer wants the $Date$ and $Revision$ expanded, then they have to update their SVN configuration to do so. If they do not, then they don't need to do anything as it is disabled in SVN by default. The key thing is that @version $Date$ $Revision$ is in the header to provide this choice. Thanks for this explanation, and for bringing in the user perspective. I can see that having expanded version information may be useful in this user context. It is not very useful to me as a developer, and it can hurt me with applying patches if I enable the keyword expansion, but I can turn this expansion off in my SVN client to suit my preference. Taking all of this into account, I am +1 on this change. Regarding whether or not we have consensus and whether we should hold a vote, consensus is not the same as unanimity. I think we need to make a decision on this issue (which is relatively minor) and move forward. Holding a vote seems to be a reasonable way to do this. Simon At the end of the day, from my personal opinion, using @version $Date$ $Revision$ is a nice to have feature in the source code. I would like to have it there. However, I would rather go without it if its presence is going to cause disharmony amongst the Tuscany Developers. Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files I would like to know the last revision and date at which a particular file is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having to do anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, opening a command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I have need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a release downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while investigating JIRAs. ++Vamsi On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging consensus but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread that there is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead trying to convince us by explaining the value of adding this? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Mark Combellack wrote: -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a consensus since there appears to be no active debate on this subject. In summary of this thread, we have: +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian. ant prefers not to do this Simon says he would find it useful. I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following in reply: Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable. Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having the same information within the file itself. So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also, my experience today with patch application indicates that there can be a downside. From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. I'd prefer to turn the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given that the information is so easily available by other means. Simon I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this week. Thanks, Mark
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Considering this has been there in several files for a while, and it really does not affect anyone that does not want to use the extra one line of information on the top of the java file. Why not let other that see some benefits on this to use it ? I'm still +1 on this. On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a consensus since there appears to be no active debate on this subject. In summary of this thread, we have: +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian. ant prefers not to do this Simon says he would find it useful. I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following in reply: Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable. Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having the same information within the file itself. So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also, my experience today with patch application indicates that there can be a downside. From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. I'd prefer to turn the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given that the information is so easily available by other means. Simon I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this week. Thanks, Mark -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a consensus since there appears to be no active debate on this subject. In summary of this thread, we have: +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian. ant prefers not to do this Simon says he would find it useful. I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following in reply: Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable. Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having the same information within the file itself. So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also, my experience today with patch application indicates that there can be a downside. From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. ++Vamsi I'd prefer to turn the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given that the information is so easily available by other means. Simon I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this week. Thanks, Mark
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
I agree with Luciano's perspective. - Venkat On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering this has been there in several files for a while, and it really does not affect anyone that does not want to use the extra one line of information on the top of the java file. Why not let other that see some benefits on this to use it ? I'm still +1 on this. On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a consensus since there appears to be no active debate on this subject. In summary of this thread, we have: +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian. ant prefers not to do this Simon says he would find it useful. I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following in reply: Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable. Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having the same information within the file itself. So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also, my experience today with patch application indicates that there can be a downside. From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. I'd prefer to turn the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given that the information is so easily available by other means. Simon I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this week. Thanks, Mark -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be trying to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging consensus but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread that there is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead trying to convince us by explaining the value of adding this? ...ant
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
-Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a consensus since there appears to be no active debate on this subject. In summary of this thread, we have: +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian. ant prefers not to do this Simon says he would find it useful. From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this week. Thanks, Mark
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
I guess you missed my +1. :-) Raymond -- From: Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:15 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a consensus since there appears to be no active debate on this subject. In summary of this thread, we have: +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian. ant prefers not to do this Simon says he would find it useful. From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a preference not to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this week. Thanks, Mark
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
+1 on adding the missing revision headers. ++Vamsi On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
-Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm still happy to make this change but I held off doing so since there does not seem to be a consensus on the subject at the moment. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are with this? I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break anything... -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Do you use an ide with svn integration? Using eclipse with the svn plugin you get this information displayed right next to the file name in the package explorer, no need to right click or anything you don't even need to open up the file. I'd guess other IDEs probably have similar tools available. Could you try that to see if it gives you what you need? See http://subclipse.tigris.org/. ...ant On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified. Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no one has suggested any? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
The problem is it only stays working if everyone has their SVN config set up for it, and if they don't it ends up with the expanded key words getting checked in to SVN, eg: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/NoConversationalContractException.java and once thats happened it makes it all a bit pointless as from just looking at the src theres no way of telling if the file has been corrupted or not. ...ant On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a while. I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that this header is nice to have but not mandatory. BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit is made. Please see: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html. There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the header is already set in the src code. Thanks, Raymond -- From: ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM To: tuscany-dev tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no one has suggested any? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
For example https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/EventInvocationException.java shows only $Rev$ $Date$ when you view the file using URL, but the values are filled in when the file is checked out. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem in this case was that when the file was created, the svn:keywords Revision and Date were not added to the file. Had they been added, irrespective of what the setting is on the user/developer's svn client, at the time of checkout, those will be replaced with the last checked in revision number and date. Browsing the file directly using the URL will not show the revision and date whether or not the svn:keywords are set. Adding the svn:keywords is a one time task. As we go along, whenever we modify an existing file, we can make sure we add the missing header and svn:keywords. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is it only stays working if everyone has their SVN config set up for it, and if they don't it ends up with the expanded key words getting checked in to SVN, eg: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/NoConversationalContractException.java and once thats happened it makes it all a bit pointless as from just looking at the src theres no way of telling if the file has been corrupted or not. ...ant On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a while. I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that this header is nice to have but not mandatory. BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit is made. Please see: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html . There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the header is already set in the src code. Thanks, Raymond -- From: ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM To: tuscany-dev tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
The problem in this case was that when the file was created, the svn:keywords Revision and Date were not added to the file. Had they been added, irrespective of what the setting is on the user/developer's svn client, at the time of checkout, those will be replaced with the last checked in revision number and date. Browsing the file directly using the URL will not show the revision and date whether or not the svn:keywords are set. Adding the svn:keywords is a one time task. As we go along, whenever we modify an existing file, we can make sure we add the missing header and svn:keywords. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is it only stays working if everyone has their SVN config set up for it, and if they don't it ends up with the expanded key words getting checked in to SVN, eg: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/NoConversationalContractException.java and once thats happened it makes it all a bit pointless as from just looking at the src theres no way of telling if the file has been corrupted or not. ...ant On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a while. I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that this header is nice to have but not mandatory. BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit is made. Please see: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html . There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the header is already set in the src code. Thanks, Raymond -- From: ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM To: tuscany-dev tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified. Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no one has suggested any? ...ant
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version to the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this. Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Can we add the missing headers as we modify existing files (not modify just to add there headers) and add the headers as we create new files? ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version to the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this. Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Personally, I would prefer not to do it incrementally as it relies on the developers remembering to check whether each file they edit contains a @version tag. This may not happen when you are concentrating on fixing a bug that has nothing to do with a @version JavaDoc annotation One other issue with doing it incrementally is that could be months/years before we actually have the @version annotation on most/all files. Depending on your point of view this may not be an issue. Mark _ From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 April 2008 14:58 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Can we add the missing headers as we modify existing files (not modify just to add there headers) and add the headers as we create new files? ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version to the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this. Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified. Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues. This is what I would like to be able to do. How do I look at the file properties to find out this information? Is there an svn command or commands to do this? Simon ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no one has suggested any? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
svn info filename command will display information as given in the example output below: -- Path: pom.xml Name: pom.xml URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-em bedded/pom.xml Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 643735 Node Kind: file Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: lresende Last Changed Rev: 639026 Last Changed Date: 2008-03-20 03:05:13 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008) Text Last Updated: 2008-03-20 12:47:48 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008) Checksum: bd9c1e3dd4c14558e23de334db5da999 I use TortoiseSVN on WindowsXP. With this, when the file properties dialog is launched by right-clicking on the file and selecting properties, there is a Subversion tab that shows some of the information given in the example above. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified. Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues. This is what I would like to be able to do. How do I look at the file properties to find out this information? Is there an svn command or commands to do this? Simon ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Oh well... it translates to the same thing as I wanted, except that there is one additional commit to just add these header, but with a bonus that I don't have to worry about checking for the header and svn:keywords when I modify an existing file. I will change my +0.5 to +1. ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I would prefer not to do it incrementally as it relies on the developers remembering to check whether each file they edit contains a @version tag. This may not happen when you are concentrating on fixing a bug that has nothing to do with a @version JavaDoc annotation One other issue with doing it incrementally is that could be months/years before we actually have the @version annotation on most/all files. Depending on your point of view this may not be an issue. Mark _ From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 April 2008 14:58 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files Can we add the missing headers as we modify existing files (not modify just to add there headers) and add the headers as we create new files? ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version to the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this. Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change? Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: svn info filename command will display information as given in the example output below: -- Path: pom.xml Name: pom.xml URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-em bedded/pom.xml Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 643735 Node Kind: file Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: lresende Last Changed Rev: 639026 Last Changed Date: 2008-03-20 03:05:13 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008) Text Last Updated: 2008-03-20 12:47:48 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008) Checksum: bd9c1e3dd4c14558e23de334db5da999 I use TortoiseSVN on WindowsXP. With this, when the file properties dialog is launched by right-clicking on the file and selecting properties, there is a Subversion tab that shows some of the information given in the example above. ++Vamsi Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable. Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having the same information within the file itself. Simon On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified. Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues. This is what I would like to be able to do. How do I look at the file properties to find out this information? Is there an svn command or commands to do this? Simon ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no one has suggested any? ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Luciano Resende wrote: If Mark is willing to check the missing files, +1 for the updates. I do find this useful from time to time. I also agree that developers should configure their IDE and SVN to proper add the tags and any necessary SVN properties to make this work. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +0.5 These numbers are expected to help in quickly getting to the revision in which these files are modified. So, if the last revision on the file just added this header, it is not of much use. I would suggest that instead of making a change to just add these headers, we add these headers in the new files and any existing files as we add/modify files. This is a practice I follow for my Geronimo commits. Also, the committer's machine should have the the subversion client properties set appropriately so that these svn:keywords get added to the newly created files. These settings help in avoiding explicitly adding the svn:keywords on newly created files. See [1]. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html ++Vamsi On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I haven't used this information yet, probably because it's not always reliably available. If we were all maintaining it with our checkins, I think I would find it useful. I am happy to get myself set up correctly to add it to files that I create. Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
ant elder wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you going to object to these commits? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a while. I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that this header is nice to have but not mandatory. BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit is made. Please see: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html. There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the header is already set in the src code. Thanks, Raymond -- From: ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM To: tuscany-dev tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark We're next week now :) Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far: - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it. Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this? Yep, I don't think we should do it. No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them. Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_ open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src floating around. And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what I like about developing at Apache. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
I'd prefer not to do this. I've never found these useful and think they just clutter up the code. ...ant On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Mark Combellack wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark +1 from me. Thanks for looking into that Mark! Also, It would be nice if all contributors could configure their IDE templates to insert the version in new files in the future. -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
+0.5 These numbers are expected to help in quickly getting to the revision in which these files are modified. So, if the last revision on the file just added this header, it is not of much use. I would suggest that instead of making a change to just add these headers, we add these headers in the new files and any existing files as we add/modify files. This is a practice I follow for my Geronimo commits. Also, the committer's machine should have the the subversion client properties set appropriately so that these svn:keywords get added to the newly created files. These settings help in avoiding explicitly adding the svn:keywords on newly created files. See [1]. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html ++Vamsi On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
If Mark is willing to check the missing files, +1 for the updates. I do find this useful from time to time. I also agree that developers should configure their IDE and SVN to proper add the tags and any necessary SVN properties to make this work. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +0.5 These numbers are expected to help in quickly getting to the revision in which these files are modified. So, if the last revision on the file just added this header, it is not of much use. I would suggest that instead of making a change to just add these headers, we add these headers in the new files and any existing files as we add/modify files. This is a practice I follow for my Geronimo commits. Also, the committer's machine should have the the subversion client properties set appropriately so that these svn:keywords get added to the newly created files. These settings help in avoiding explicitly adding the svn:keywords on newly created files. See [1]. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html ++Vamsi On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Mark Combellack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc headers but others do not. As an example, @version might look like: /** * Some JavaDoc for the class * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 + (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) $ */ I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a problem with me doing this at this time. I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection. Thanks, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
