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 +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 > > > >
