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