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 +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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
