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 +0000 (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
