I think they may be helpful in the public API - to be able to tell if you are using a feature that has been around for a while, or to realize what version you need to upgrade to in order to get a feature.
-Dan On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Just for my own curiosity... why do we need the @since tag? > What benefit does it provide the product/code? > > --Udo > > > On 27/04/2016 7:43 am, Dan Smith wrote: > >> It sounds like more people are in favor of Geode 1.0.0 and GemFire x.y.z, >> so I created bug GEODE-1316 to implement this change. >> >> -Dan >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I must be honest that I've never been a supporter of the @since tag. Imo, >>> release notes and features should be the paper trail that we provide. >>> Also, >>> how would we handle a scenario where a class is denoted with @since 6.5.x >>> and all internals of that class are completely new and replaced with >>> 8.2.x >>> or even 9.0 (or 1.0 Geode) code? >>> >>> I think that @since tags become like comments, without somebody changing >>> things, they just become stale and stagnant. I cannot think of many open >>> source projects that use @since tags. >>> >>> But if we must have them in the code base then I prefer to have them as a >>> Geode x.y.z >>> >>> >>> On 26/04/2016 9:56 am, Darrel Schneider wrote: >>> >>> +1 for having on explicit GemFire and Geode >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kenneth Howe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 to “gemFire x.y.z” >>>> >>>>> Adding the GemFire makes it obvious where the feature came from, no >>>>> inference >>>>> required as would happen if we left just a version number for old >>>>> @since >>>>> annotations. >>>>> >>>>> Ken >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Kirk Lund <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 for @since Geode 1.0.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> If we keep the pre-existing @since tags, then I'd prefer to add >>>>>> "GemFire" >>>>>> to them for better clarity. Thus, @since 4.0.0 would be changed to >>>>>> @since >>>>>> GemFire 4.0.0. Just my preference. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Kirk >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Sai Boorlagadda < >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 for Geode 1.0.0 >>>>>> >>>>>>> And we can leave current @since tags as-is with out "GemFire" to >>>>>>> denote >>>>>>> predate Geode. >>>>>>> So if you see "Geode x.y.z" => added in Geode >>>>>>> or "x.y.z" => Predate to Geode >>>>>>> (i.e.,) >>>>>>> GemFire. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for @since Geode 1.0.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @since GemFire x.y.z is probably not all that useful from a Geode >>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe important in GemFire source, particularly for >>>>>>>> features that maybe specific to GemFire, or predate Geode. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Dan Smith < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have a lot of @since tags in our javadocs with old gemfire >>>>>>>>> versions. I think we are going to keep them in there, we should >>>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>> do a sweep and add gemfire to the version: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eg >>>>>>>>> @since GemFire 5.5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For geode @since tags, we can start from 1.0: >>>>>>>>> @since 1.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or maybe it would be better to be explicit? >>>>>>>>> @since Geode 1.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you guys think? >>>>>>>>> -Dan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -John >>>>>>>> 503-504-8657 >>>>>>>> john.blum10101 (skype) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sai Boorlagadda >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
