>
> Some consensus is needed whether there should be some rote comment for
> getters and setters, or whether the Javadoc should be simply skipped for
> simple getters and setters, provided that there is separate doc for the
> field that they name.
I think it would help if we collectively agreed up
Not so much wiggle room in that case so much as a guideline for commenting
getters and setters and the field they access.
Some consensus is needed whether there should be some rote comment for
getters and setters, or whether the Javadoc should be simply skipped for
simple getters and setters, prov
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Looking forward to other's opinions and feedbacks on this proposal.
We might want to leave just a little wiggle room for judgment on the
part of the reviewer, for the very simple cases. Documenting
something like setFoo(int) with "Sets f
I've tagged 3.6 and 3.0.6 tentatively for release. This means all changes
to this version are effectively frozen barring a regression in the tagged
version.
I've created cassandra-3.7 branch and marked the build version as such.
Trunk is now marked 3.8.
New JIRA versions for 3.7 and 3.0.7 and 3.8
