Hi, It looks like the discussions on adding SVN version to Java files has gone quiet again so I'll give it a little prod :-)
Previously, the question was asked as to what was the justification for adding the SVN version. I hope I have answered this question satisfactorily. Generally people seemed to be happy with adding SVN version to the Java files. However, ant, would prefer not to do this. ant, has the recent justification emails provided you with enough of a reason to convince you that they should be added? Thanks, Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Combellack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 April 2008 09:55 > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files > > Hi, > > > > The main reasons that I like the SVN details in the header of the files > include: > > > > * You can look at the source file and see what revision it is > without having to use SVN commands > > * Typically, developers will do an SVN checkout of the code using > SVN so they can get the information via SVN commands or via the headers > > * Typically, users do not do an SVN checkout of the source code > and > will not have SVN installed. They are typically provided with a jar file > containing the source code. They will not be able to run SVN command to > work > out which versions of source code they are running > > * Typically, there are many, many more users than there are > developers > > * If a source file is printed out or attached as an email as part > of > a bug report or published on a web server, the source code will contain > the > SVN revision number. This makes the bug easier to fix as you know the > revision number. The SVN commands will not be able to tell you the > revision > number in these scenarios. > > > > > > The nice thing about the SVN keyword substitution is that a Developer is > free to choose whether they want them or not as the expansion is done on > the > client side. If a Developer wants the $Date$ and $Revision$ expanded, then > they have to update their SVN configuration to do so. If they do not, then > they don't need to do anything as it is disabled in SVN by default. The > key > thing is that @version $Date$ $Revision$ is in the header to provide this > choice. > > > > > > > > At the end of the day, from my personal opinion, using @version $Date$ > $Revision$ is a nice to have feature in the source code. I would like to > have it there. However, I would rather go without it if its presence is > going to cause disharmony amongst the Tuscany Developers. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04 > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files > > > > > > I would like to know the last revision and date at which a particular > file > > > is updated just by opening the file in any editor and without having to > do > > > anything extra, for e.g., like installing a plugin for eclipse, opening > a > > > command prompt to issue an svn info command (note that the source I have > > > need not always be from svn, it could be a source archive for a release > > > downloaded separately), etc. I found this info very useful while > > > investigating JIRAs. > > > > > > ++Vamsi > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > From the above, we have 4 +1s and no -1s - although we have a > > > > > > > > preference not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do this from ant. So, the consensus is to make this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We haven't held a formal vote, so I don't think we should be > > > trying > > > > > > to decide this based on a count of +1s and -1s. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. We should hold a formal vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do consensus based development. Voting can be a useful gauging > > > > consensus > > > > but voting does not make consensus. Its obvious from this thread that > > > > there > > > > is not (yet) consensus so we don't need a vote, how about instead > trying > > > > to > > > > convince us by explaining the value of adding this? > > > > > > > > ...ant > > > >
