On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:19 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 April 2011 10:44, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5 April 2011 09:55, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi all guys! > >> > >> @Torsten: I agree, question is that I have never understood why the > >> common usage is putting SVN tags in @version javadoc, so since I > >> noticed a mixed usage, I wondered which one is the commonly used; > >> > >> @Christian: I intended @version, because existing source have *a lot* > >> of that tag; for @since instead the common usage seems to be correct > >> > >> BTW I would be +1 for NO @version and putting only @since > > > > I think the intention of the @version tag is to identify code that is > > not stored in SVN - e.g. in a source archive. > > > > $Revision$ and $Id$ (or even $HeadUrl) are fine in @version comments, > > however please don't use $Date$ as that is expressed in local time. > > This really messes up release checking as the dates in source archives > > don't match the dates in SVN tag checkouts unless the same timezone is > > being used. > > In case it's not obvious, I am > > -1 to banning @version, as it can be useful >
Since $Id$ contains the user ID we I would an @version that contains the revision number. I find that useful. I like to see a revision number in the manifest too (if it's not there already), like http://maven.apache.org/plugin-developers/cookbook/add-svn-revision-to-manifest.html Gary > +1 to banning $Date$ in @version > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
