+1!
On 08.09.2010 13:02:29 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Ok, let me summarise this:
• a @[asf.]todo tag marginally improves the formatting of a javadoc
comment
• nobody really likes the idea of using a namespaced version of todo
(@asf.todo)
• it is possible to tweak Checkstyle and the
: r990148 - in
/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop: area/ fo/ fo/flow/
fo/flow/table/ fo/pagination/ fo/properties/ hyphenation/ layoutmgr/
layoutmgr/inline/ layoutmgr/table/]
+1!
On 08.09.2010 13:02:29 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Ok, let me summarise this:
* a @[asf.]todo tag marginally
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Jeremias Maerki d...@jeremias-maerki.chwrote:
I'm not sure we have the tooling to make sure noone
uses @todo.
Actually, checkstyle 5.1 will report warnings for any use of a non-standard
tag that is not qualified with a dotted prefix. Also the standard Doclet in
On 02.09.2010 12:14, Glenn Adams wrote:
also the doclet options to permit use of @todo without warnings. I could try
to experiment some to see if that is feasible, then we could return to the
former usage of @todo.
Javadoc 1.5 or later can be passed a command line option defining
additional
Hi,
I just thought I would homogenize our usage of todo tags and match what
seems to be the de facto standard (“TODO”) among current committers.
Most @todo indeed come from very old commits. I didn’t realise that
javadoc could do something with them, which is why that looked to me
like a minor
I don't have a strong opinion on whether to keep the @asf.todo or TODO. My
main interest was removing the javadocs warnings produced (under jdk1.6
doclet) through the former use of @todo.
My point in bringing it up was to request that we discuss beforehand
prospective changes that back-out or
It would indeed have been better to first have a discussion and then
make the change. @asf.todo is specific enough that we could have
changed it at any time. That said, Glenn's change was also made
without a discussion. My javadoc does not complain about the @todo
tag, and I had not understood
