On 5 April 2011 22:39, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2011/4/6 Emmanuel Bourg :
>> Le 05/04/2011 22:43, sebb a écrit :
>>
>>> Please don't use $Date$, because it makes checking releases much harder.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on this sebb ? I saw your other message regarding the
>> timezone but I don'
2011/4/6 Emmanuel Bourg :
> Le 05/04/2011 22:43, sebb a écrit :
>
>> Please don't use $Date$, because it makes checking releases much harder.
>
> Could you elaborate on this sebb ? I saw your other message regarding the
> timezone but I don't really understand the issue it creates when you are
> ch
On 5 April 2011 21:57, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 05/04/2011 22:43, sebb a écrit :
>
>> Please don't use $Date$, because it makes checking releases much harder.
>
> Could you elaborate on this sebb ? I saw your other message regarding the
> timezone but I don't really understand the issue it creat
Le 05/04/2011 22:43, sebb a écrit :
Please don't use $Date$, because it makes checking releases much harder.
Could you elaborate on this sebb ? I saw your other message regarding
the timezone but I don't really understand the issue it creates when you
are checking a release.
Emmanuel Bourg
On 5 April 2011 21:04, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I tend to use this syntax:
>
> @version $Revision$, $Date$
Please don't use $Date$, because it makes checking releases much harder.
> I don't use $Id$ because it's a bit long and verbose, but I don't mind if
> someone else uses it.
>
> Git propon
HAHHAHA be ready guys, next will be maybe remembered as the longest
thread in commons :D
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 05/04/2011 11:59, Simon
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 05/04/2011 11:59, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all guys!
>> I think we all should agree on adopting a common policy, it shouldn't
>> be dependent by who takes care of a component.
>> I see different opinion about @version tag usage,
I tend to use this syntax:
@version $Revision$, $Date$
I don't use $Id$ because it's a bit long and verbose, but I don't mind
if someone else uses it.
Git proponents will probably argue to remove this tag because it
interferes with the checksumming.
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 05/04/2011 10:
Le 05/04/2011 11:59, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
Hi all guys!
I think we all should agree on adopting a common policy, it shouldn't
be dependent by who takes care of a component.
I see different opinion about @version tag usage, so what's next?
shall we calla vote to make a definitive decision?
I'm
> As Java developers, we so rarely get to use $ in our code, so it
> would be a shame to see these little gems vanish from our sources
> ;)
LOL
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands,
On 4/5/11 3:25 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> In case it's not obvious, I am
>>
>> -1 to banning @version, as it can be useful
> Could you elaborate on such a scenario?
>
>> +1 to banning $Date$ in @version
> IMO all SCM magic tokens should be banned from @version ...or for that
> matter pretty much e
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> -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.
>
> -1 to that from me
-1 from me too
I never have seen a reason to include this information
>> -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.
-1 to that from me
This thread has quite a bikeshedding potential if people do not come
up with reason *why* they think particular things are useful. I
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> The only benefit of the @version tag is that it shows up in javadoc. The
> $Id$, if at the top of the file, does not. It's nice to see the subversion
> number in API documents. I prefer that since it lets me track down the
> actual version i
The only benefit of the @version tag is that it shows up in javadoc. The
$Id$, if at the top of the file, does not. It's nice to see the subversion
number in API documents. I prefer that since it lets me track down the
actual version in a repository.
Paul
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Gary Greg
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:19 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 10:44, sebb wrote:
> > On 5 April 2011 09:55, Simone Tripodi 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
On Apr 5, 2011, at 5:45, sebb wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 09:55, Simone Tripodi 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
> I like using $Id$ fwiw
Could you also explain *why* you like it?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
On Apr 5, 2011, at 4:39, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> @version should show the version of artifact.
>
> Isnt this the intention of @since?
@since should show when the item was added.
Gary
>
> -
I like using $Id$ fwiw
Gary
On Apr 5, 2011, at 4:29, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> How about no @Version tag or $Id" ?
> Stephen
>
> On 5 April 2011 09:16, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> after the @author tag, I'm here to ask to clarify *to me* how @version
>> shall be used in Commons
> In case it's not obvious, I am
>
> -1 to banning @version, as it can be useful
Could you elaborate on such a scenario?
> +1 to banning $Date$ in @version
IMO all SCM magic tokens should be banned from @version ...or for that
matter pretty much everywhere.
@version should not be banned but onl
On 5 April 2011 10:44, sebb wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 09:55, Simone Tripodi 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 com
>> BTW I would be +1 for NO @version and putting only @since
+1
> @version contains cruft
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Simone Tripodi 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 existin
Hi all guys!
I think we all should agree on adopting a common policy, it shouldn't
be dependent by who takes care of a component.
I see different opinion about @version tag usage, so what's next?
shall we calla vote to make a definitive decision?
I'm worried that this discussion could degenerate i
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:39, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> @version should show the version of artifact.
>
> Isnt this the intention of @since?
No, @since shows when the class/method was added to the API
TBH I don't see a good reason for
On 5 April 2011 09:55, Simone Tripodi 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 @ver
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; fo
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> @version should show the version of artifact.
Isnt this the intention of @since?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mai
$id is not of interest for me. $id information can easily be found
with svn blame/history.
For me it can be nuked out - same for @version, i want @since instead
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> How about no @Version tag or $Id" ?
> Stephen
>
> On 5 April 2011 09:16, S
How about no @Version tag or $Id" ?
Stephen
On 5 April 2011 09:16, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> after the @author tag, I'm here to ask to clarify *to me* how @version
> shall be used in Commons :)
> I saw various usage across components:
>
> - In [digester] we just use $Id$ on top of th
> after the @author tag, I'm here to ask to clarify *to me* how @version
> shall be used in Commons :)
*for me* using using all these $Id$ $Revision$ $Date$ stuff does not
make much sense at all.
@version should show the version of artifact.
cheers,
Torsten
--
Hi all guys,
after the @author tag, I'm here to ask to clarify *to me* how @version
shall be used in Commons :)
I saw various usage across components:
- In [digester] we just use $Id$ on top of the license header;
- In [pool] we often used @version $Id$ in the class javadoc;
- In [discovery] we mi
33 matches
Mail list logo
