+1 on adding the missing revision headers. ++Vamsi
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:29 AM, 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 > > > > > > > I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there > doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are > with this? > > I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that > it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal, > so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal. > > Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take > less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break > anything... > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
