You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org> on 2008/03/27 21:55:20 UTC
Adding SVN version to Java files
Hi,
I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
headers but others do not.
As an example, @version might look like:
/**
* Some JavaDoc for the class
*
* @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
2007) $
*/
I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where
it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
problem with me doing this at this time.
I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
Thanks,
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
For example
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/EventInvocationException.java
shows only $Rev$ $Date$ when you view the file using URL, but the values are
filled in when the file is checked out.
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The problem in this case was that when the file was created, the
> svn:keywords Revision and Date were not added to the file. Had they been
> added, irrespective of what the setting is on the user/developer's svn
> client, at the time of checkout, those will be replaced with the last
> checked in revision number and date. Browsing the file directly using the
> URL will not show the revision and date whether or not the svn:keywords are
> set. Adding the svn:keywords is a one time task. As we go along, whenever
> we modify an existing file, we can make sure we add the missing header and
> svn:keywords.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The problem is it only stays working if everyone has their SVN config
> > set up
> > for it, and if they don't it ends up with the expanded key words getting
> > checked in to SVN, eg:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/NoConversationalContractException.java
> >
> > and once thats happened it makes it all a bit pointless as from just
> > looking
> > at the src theres no way of telling if the file has been corrupted or
> > not.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a
> > while.
> > > I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that
> > this
> > > header is nice to have but not mandatory.
> > >
> > > BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a
> > commit
> > > is made. Please see:
> > >
> > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html
> > .
> > > There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the
> > header
> > > is already set in the src code.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Raymond
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM
> > > To: "tuscany-dev" <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > > > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed
> > that
> > > > > some
> > > > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in
> > their
> > > > > JavaDoc
> > > > > > headers but others do not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /**
> > > > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000
> > (Sun, 25
> > > > > > Nov
> > > > > > 2007) $
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > > > header
> > > > > where
> > > > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor
> > changes to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure
> > no-one
> > > > > had > a
> > > > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We're next week now :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > > > >
> > > > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> > > >
> > > > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them
> > but
> > > > for
> > > > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> > > > have it
> > > > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> > > > makes
> > > > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> > > > looking
> > > > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a
> > bad
> > > > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to
> > the ML
> > > > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > > > what
> > > > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of
> > circumstances
> > > > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're
> > having
> > > > to
> > > > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> > > > _is_
> > > > open source so its normal to have access to the version control
> > system
> > > > not
> > > > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled
> > src
> > > > floating around.
> > > >
> > > > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
> > don't
> > > > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > > > more
> > > > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those
> > it
> > > > what
> > > > I like about developing at Apache.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
The problem in this case was that when the file was created, the
svn:keywords Revision and Date were not added to the file. Had they been
added, irrespective of what the setting is on the user/developer's svn
client, at the time of checkout, those will be replaced with the last
checked in revision number and date. Browsing the file directly using the
URL will not show the revision and date whether or not the svn:keywords are
set. Adding the svn:keywords is a one time task. As we go along, whenever
we modify an existing file, we can make sure we add the missing header and
svn:keywords.
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> The problem is it only stays working if everyone has their SVN config set
> up
> for it, and if they don't it ends up with the expanded key words getting
> checked in to SVN, eg:
>
>
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/NoConversationalContractException.java
>
> and once thats happened it makes it all a bit pointless as from just
> looking
> at the src theres no way of telling if the file has been corrupted or not.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a
> while.
> > I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that
> this
> > header is nice to have but not mandatory.
> >
> > BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit
> > is made. Please see:
> >
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html
> .
> > There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the
> header
> > is already set in the src code.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM
> > To: "tuscany-dev" <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> > > > some
> > > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > > JavaDoc
> > > > > headers but others do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > > *
> > > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun,
> 25
> > > > > Nov
> > > > > 2007) $
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > > header
> > > > where
> > > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes
> to
> > > > > the
> > > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
> > > > had > a
> > > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We're next week now :)
> > > >
> > > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > > >
> > > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> > >
> > > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them
> but
> > > for
> > > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> > > have it
> > > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> > > makes
> > > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> > > looking
> > > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a
> bad
> > > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the
> ML
> > > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > > what
> > > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> > >
> > > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> > > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
> > > to
> > > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> > > _is_
> > > open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
> > > not
> > > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled
> src
> > > floating around.
> > >
> > > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
> don't
> > > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > > more
> > > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> > > what
> > > I like about developing at Apache.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
The problem is it only stays working if everyone has their SVN config set up
for it, and if they don't it ends up with the expanded key words getting
checked in to SVN, eg:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-java-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/implementation/java/invocation/NoConversationalContractException.java
and once thats happened it makes it all a bit pointless as from just looking
at the src theres no way of telling if the file has been corrupted or not.
...ant
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a while.
> I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that this
> header is nice to have but not mandatory.
>
> BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit
> is made. Please see:
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html.
> There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the header
> is already set in the src code.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: "tuscany-dev" <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> > > some
> > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > JavaDoc
> > > > headers but others do not.
> > > >
> > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > *
> > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> > > > Nov
> > > > 2007) $
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > header
> > > where
> > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
> > > > the
> > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
> > > had > a
> > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > >
> > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > >
> > > We're next week now :)
> > >
> > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > >
> > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > >
> > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> >
> > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
> > for
> > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> > have it
> > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> > makes
> > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> > looking
> > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > what
> > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> >
> > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
> > to
> > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> > _is_
> > open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
> > not
> > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> > floating around.
> >
> > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > more
> > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> > what
> > I like about developing at Apache.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I already have my IDE set up to add the headers automatically for a while.
I'm +1 on Mark's proposal as he's volunteering :-). My stance is that this
header is nice to have but not mandatory.
BTW, this header is updated by SVN (not by developers) whenever a commit is
made. Please see:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html.
There is no extra burden for developers to keep it up-to-date if the header
is already set in the src code.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:55 AM
To: "tuscany-dev" <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>> JavaDoc
>> > headers but others do not.
>> >
>> > As an example, @version might look like:
>> >
>> > /**
>> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
>> > *
>> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
>> > Nov
>> > 2007) $
>> > */
>> >
>> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> where
>> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
>> > the
>> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had
>> > a
>> > problem with me doing this at this time.
>> >
>> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>>
>> We're next week now :)
>>
>> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
>> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
>> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
>> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
>> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
>> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
>> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>>
>> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>>
>> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>>
>>
> Yep, I don't think we should do it.
>
> No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
> for
> them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have
> it
> set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes
> them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> looking
> at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what
> used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
>
> Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to
> look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_
> open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not
> like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> floating around.
>
> And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more
> formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> what
> I like about developing at Apache.
>
> ...ant
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
Oh well... it translates to the same thing as I wanted, except that there
is one additional commit to just add these header, but with a bonus that I
don't have to worry about checking for the header and svn:keywords when I
modify an existing file. I will change my +0.5 to +1.
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Personally, I would prefer not to do it incrementally as it relies on the
> developers remembering to check whether each file they edit contains a
> @version tag. This may not happen when you are concentrating on fixing a
> bug
> that has nothing to do with a @version JavaDoc annotation
>
>
>
> One other issue with doing it incrementally is that could be months/years
> before we actually have the @version annotation on most/all files.
> Depending
> on your point of view this may not be an issue.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
> Sent: 02 April 2008 14:58
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; mcombellack@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
>
>
> Can we add the missing headers as we modify existing files (not modify
> just
> to add there headers) and add the headers as we create new files?
>
> ++Vamsi
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version
> to
> the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this.
>
> Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Combellack wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> some
> >>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> >> JavaDoc
> >>> headers but others do not.
> >>>
> >>> As an example, @version might look like:
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> >>> *
> >>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> Nov
> >>> 2007) $
> >>> */
> >>>
> >>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> >> where
> >>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
> the
> >>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had
> a
> >>> problem with me doing this at this time.
> >>>
> >>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >> We're next week now :)
> >>
> >> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> >> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> >> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> >> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> >> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> >> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> >> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> >>
> >> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> >>
> >> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> >>
> >>
> > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> >
> > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
> for
> > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> have
> it
> > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> makes
> > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> looking
> > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> what
> > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> >
> > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
> to
> > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> _is_
> > open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
> not
> > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> > floating around.
> >
> > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> more
> > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> what
> > I like about developing at Apache.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
> the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
> you going to object to these commits?
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
Personally, I would prefer not to do it incrementally as it relies on the
developers remembering to check whether each file they edit contains a
@version tag. This may not happen when you are concentrating on fixing a bug
that has nothing to do with a @version JavaDoc annotation
One other issue with doing it incrementally is that could be months/years
before we actually have the @version annotation on most/all files. Depending
on your point of view this may not be an issue.
Mark
_____
From: Vamsavardhana Reddy [mailto:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 April 2008 14:58
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; mcombellack@apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Can we add the missing headers as we modify existing files (not modify just
to add there headers) and add the headers as we create new files?
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version to
the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this.
Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change?
Thanks,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>> JavaDoc
>>> headers but others do not.
>>>
>>> As an example, @version might look like:
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
>>> *
>>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
>>> 2007) $
>>> */
>>>
>>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> where
>>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
>>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
>>> problem with me doing this at this time.
>>>
>>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>> We're next week now :)
>>
>> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
>> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
>> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
>> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
>> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
>> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
>> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>>
>> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>>
>> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>>
>>
> Yep, I don't think we should do it.
>
> No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
for
> them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have
it
> set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes
> them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
looking
> at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what
> used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
>
> Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to
> look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_
> open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not
> like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> floating around.
>
> And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more
> formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
what
> I like about developing at Apache.
>
> ...ant
>
Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
you going to object to these commits?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
Can we add the missing headers as we modify existing files (not modify just
to add there headers) and add the headers as we create new files?
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version
> to
> the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this.
>
> Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Combellack wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> some
> >>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> >> JavaDoc
> >>> headers but others do not.
> >>>
> >>> As an example, @version might look like:
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> >>> *
> >>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> Nov
> >>> 2007) $
> >>> */
> >>>
> >>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> >> where
> >>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
> the
> >>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had
> a
> >>> problem with me doing this at this time.
> >>>
> >>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >> We're next week now :)
> >>
> >> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> >> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> >> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> >> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> >> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> >> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> >> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> >>
> >> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> >>
> >> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> >>
> >>
> > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> >
> > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
> for
> > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> have
> it
> > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> makes
> > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> looking
> > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> what
> > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> >
> > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
> to
> > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> _is_
> > open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
> not
> > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> > floating around.
> >
> > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> more
> > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> what
> > I like about developing at Apache.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
> the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
> you going to object to these commits?
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
I was wondering if we are any closer to a consensus on me adding @version to
the headers. I realise ant has said he would prefer not to do this.
Should I start adding them or should I not bother with this change?
Thanks,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
Sent: 31 March 2008 20:01
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>> JavaDoc
>>> headers but others do not.
>>>
>>> As an example, @version might look like:
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
>>> *
>>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
>>> 2007) $
>>> */
>>>
>>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> where
>>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
>>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
>>> problem with me doing this at this time.
>>>
>>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>> We're next week now :)
>>
>> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
>> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
>> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
>> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
>> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
>> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
>> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>>
>> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>>
>> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>>
>>
> Yep, I don't think we should do it.
>
> No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
for
> them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have
it
> set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes
> them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
looking
> at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what
> used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
>
> Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to
> look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_
> open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not
> like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> floating around.
>
> And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more
> formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
what
> I like about developing at Apache.
>
> ...ant
>
Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
you going to object to these commits?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> "svn info <filename>" command will display information as given in the
> example output below:
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Path: pom.xml
> Name: pom.xml
> URL:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-em
> bedded/pom.xml
> Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
> Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
> Revision: 643735
> Node Kind: file
> Schedule: normal
> Last Changed Author: lresende
> Last Changed Rev: 639026
> Last Changed Date: 2008-03-20 03:05:13 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008)
> Text Last Updated: 2008-03-20 12:47:48 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008)
> Checksum: bd9c1e3dd4c14558e23de334db5da999
> ----------------------------------------
>
> I use TortoiseSVN on WindowsXP. With this, when the file properties dialog
> is launched by right-clicking on the file and selecting "properties", there
> is a "Subversion" tab that shows some of the information given in the
> example above.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable.
Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having
the same information within the file itself.
Simon
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>>
>>> The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything
>>> extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified.
>>> Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know
>>> that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> This is what I would like to be able to do. How do I look at the
>> file properties to find out this information? Is there an svn command
>> or commands to do this?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> ++Vamsi
>>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
>>>> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
>>>>>> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JavaDoc
>>>>>>> headers but others do not.
>>>>>>>> As an example, @version might look like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000
>>>>>>>> (Sun,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 25
>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>> 2007) $
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> header
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure
>>>>>>>> no-one
>>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>>> problem with me doing this at this time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an
>>>>>>>> objection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're next week now :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
>>>>>>> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
>>>>>>> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
>>>>>>> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
>>>>>>> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
>>>>>>> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
>>>>>>> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, I don't think we should do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>> for
>>>>>> them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> have it
>>>>>> set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>> them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>> bad
>>>>> environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>> ML
>>>>> when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of
>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>> anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> look at src out of version control or out of a released distro?
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> _is_
>>>>>> open source so its normal to have access to the version control
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be
>>>>>> uncontrolled
>>>>>>
>>>>> src
>>>>> floating around.
>>>>>> And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
>>>>>>
>>>>> don't
>>>>> understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of
>>>>>> those it
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> I like about developing at Apache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add
>>>>> them to
>>>>> the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment).
>>>>> Are
>>>>>
>>>> you
>>>>
>>>>> going to object to these commits?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real
>>>> cases of
>>>> where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now
>>>> no
>>>> one has suggested any?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
"svn info <filename>" command will display information as given in the
example output below:
------------------------------------------
Path: pom.xml
Name: pom.xml
URL:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-em
bedded/pom.xml
Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
Revision: 643735
Node Kind: file
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: lresende
Last Changed Rev: 639026
Last Changed Date: 2008-03-20 03:05:13 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008)
Text Last Updated: 2008-03-20 12:47:48 +0530 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008)
Checksum: bd9c1e3dd4c14558e23de334db5da999
----------------------------------------
I use TortoiseSVN on WindowsXP. With this, when the file properties dialog
is launched by right-clicking on the file and selecting "properties", there
is a "Subversion" tab that shows some of the information given in the
example above.
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
> > The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything
> > extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified.
> > Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know
> > that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating
> > issues.
> >
> > This is what I would like to be able to do. How do I look at the
> file properties to find out this information? Is there an svn command
> or commands to do this?
>
> Simon
>
>
> ++Vamsi
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > ant elder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > > > > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JavaDoc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > headers but others do not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000
> > > > > > > (Sun,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 25
> > >
> > > > Nov
> > > > > > > 2007) $
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > header
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > to
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure
> > > > > > > no-one
> > > > > > > had a
> > > > > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an
> > > > > > > objection.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're next week now :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > > > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > > > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > > > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > > > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > > > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > > > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using
> > > > > them
> > > > >
> > > > but
> > >
> > > > for
> > > > > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to
> > > > > always
> > > > > have it
> > > > > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone
> > > > > which
> > > > > makes
> > > > > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src
> > > > > you're
> > > > > looking
> > > > > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with
> > > > > a
> > > > >
> > > > bad
> > >
> > > > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > ML
> > >
> > > > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > > > > what
> > > > > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of
> > > > > circumstances
> > > > > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're
> > > > > having
> > > > > to
> > > > > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro?
> > > > > This
> > > > > _is_
> > > > > open source so its normal to have access to the version control
> > > > > system
> > > > > not
> > > > > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be
> > > > > uncontrolled
> > > > >
> > > > src
> > >
> > > > floating around.
> > > > >
> > > > > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
> > > > >
> > > > don't
> > >
> > > > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > > > > more
> > > > > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of
> > > > > those it
> > > > > what
> > > > > I like about developing at Apache.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...ant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add
> > > > them to
> > > > the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment).
> > > > Are
> > > >
> > > you
> > >
> > > > going to object to these commits?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Sebastien
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real
> > > cases of
> > > where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now
> > > no
> > > one has suggested any?
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything
> extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified.
> Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know
> that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues.
>
This is what I would like to be able to do. How do I look at the
file properties to find out this information? Is there an svn command
or commands to do this?
Simon
> ++Vamsi
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
>> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
>>>> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>>>>>>
>>>>> JavaDoc
>>>>>
>>>>>> headers but others do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an example, @version might look like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /**
>>>>>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun,
>> 25
>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>> 2007) $
>>>>>> */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
>>>>>> header
>>>>>>
>>>>> where
>>>>>
>>>>>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes
>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
>>>>>> had a
>>>>>> problem with me doing this at this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're next week now :)
>>>>> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
>>>>> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
>>>>> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
>>>>> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
>>>>> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
>>>>> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
>>>>> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, I don't think we should do it.
>>>> No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them
>> but
>>>> for
>>>> them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
>>>> have it
>>>> set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
>>>> makes
>>>> them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
>>>> looking
>>>> at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a
>> bad
>>>> environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the
>> ML
>>>> when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
>>>> what
>>>> used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
>>>> anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
>>>> to
>>>> look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
>>>> _is_
>>>> open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
>>>> not
>>>> like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled
>> src
>>>> floating around.
>>>>
>>>> And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
>> don't
>>>> understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
>>>> more
>>>> formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
>>>> what
>>>> I like about developing at Apache.
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
>>> the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
>> you
>>> going to object to these commits?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>
>> I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of
>> where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no
>> one has suggested any?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
Do you use an ide with svn integration? Using eclipse with the svn plugin
you get this information displayed right next to the file name in the
package explorer, no need to right click or anything you don't even need to
open up the file. I'd guess other IDEs probably have similar tools
available. Could you try that to see if it gives you what you need? See
http://subclipse.tigris.org/.
...ant
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything
> extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified.
> Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know
> that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > ant elder wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > > > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed
> > that
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in
> > their
> > > > > >
> > > > > JavaDoc
> > > > >
> > > > > > headers but others do not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /**
> > > > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000
> > (Sun, 25
> > > > > > Nov
> > > > > > 2007) $
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > > > > header
> > > > > >
> > > > > where
> > > > >
> > > > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor
> > changes to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure
> > no-one
> > > > > > had a
> > > > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We're next week now :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > > > >
> > > > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> > > >
> > > > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them
> > but
> > > > for
> > > > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> > > > have it
> > > > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> > > > makes
> > > > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> > > > looking
> > > > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a
> > bad
> > > > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to
> > the ML
> > > > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > > > what
> > > > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of
> > circumstances
> > > > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're
> > having
> > > > to
> > > > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> > > > _is_
> > > > open source so its normal to have access to the version control
> > system
> > > > not
> > > > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled
> > src
> > > > floating around.
> > > >
> > > > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
> > don't
> > > > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > > > more
> > > > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those
> > it
> > > > what
> > > > I like about developing at Apache.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them
> > to
> > > the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
> > you
> > > going to object to these commits?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Sebastien
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of
> > where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now
> > no
> > one has suggested any?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
The one use I see is that by looking at the file (and not doing anything
extra), I can quickly learn the last revision at which it is modified.
Otherwise, I will have to look at the file properties or svn log to know
that revision number. I find that it saves time while investigating issues.
++Vamsi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > ant elder wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> > > > > some
> > > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > > >
> > > > JavaDoc
> > > >
> > > > > headers but others do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > > *
> > > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun,
> 25
> > > > > Nov
> > > > > 2007) $
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > > > header
> > > > >
> > > > where
> > > >
> > > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes
> to
> > > > > the
> > > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
> > > > > had a
> > > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > We're next week now :)
> > > >
> > > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > > >
> > > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> > >
> > > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them
> but
> > > for
> > > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> > > have it
> > > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> > > makes
> > > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> > > looking
> > > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a
> bad
> > > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the
> ML
> > > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > > what
> > > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> > >
> > > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> > > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
> > > to
> > > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> > > _is_
> > > open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
> > > not
> > > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled
> src
> > > floating around.
> > >
> > > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just
> don't
> > > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > > more
> > > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> > > what
> > > I like about developing at Apache.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > >
> > Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
> > the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
> you
> > going to object to these commits?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
> >
>
> I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of
> where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no
> one has suggested any?
>
> ...ant
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> > > > some
> > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > >
> > > JavaDoc
> > >
> > > > headers but others do not.
> > > >
> > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > *
> > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> > > > Nov
> > > > 2007) $
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > > header
> > > >
> > > where
> > >
> > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
> > > > the
> > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
> > > > had a
> > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > >
> > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > We're next week now :)
> > >
> > > Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> > > - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> > > - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> > > - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> > > - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> > > - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> > > - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
> > >
> > > 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
> > >
> > > Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, I don't think we should do it.
> >
> > No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but
> > for
> > them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always
> > have it
> > set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which
> > makes
> > them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're
> > looking
> > at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> > environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> > when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly
> > what
> > used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
> >
> > Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> > anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having
> > to
> > look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This
> > _is_
> > open source so its normal to have access to the version control system
> > not
> > like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> > floating around.
> >
> > And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> > understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had
> > more
> > formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it
> > what
> > I like about developing at Apache.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> >
> Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
> the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are you
> going to object to these commits?
>
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
I'd like to understand why we need them. If there are some real cases of
where they really are useful then maybe it is worthwhile but right now no
one has suggested any?
...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>> JavaDoc
>>> headers but others do not.
>>>
>>> As an example, @version might look like:
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
>>> *
>>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
>>> 2007) $
>>> */
>>>
>>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> where
>>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
>>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
>>> problem with me doing this at this time.
>>>
>>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>> We're next week now :)
>>
>> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
>> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
>> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
>> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
>> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
>> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
>> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>>
>> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>>
>> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>>
>>
> Yep, I don't think we should do it.
>
> No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for
> them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it
> set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes
> them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking
> at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
> environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
> when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what
> used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
>
> Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
> anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to
> look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_
> open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not
> like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
> floating around.
>
> And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
> understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more
> formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what
> I like about developing at Apache.
>
> ...ant
>
Are you saying that we should remove them? What if I want to add them to
the new files I'm editing (which is what I'm doing at the moment). Are
you going to object to these commits?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> Mark Combellack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> JavaDoc
> > headers but others do not.
> >
> > As an example, @version might look like:
> >
> > /**
> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > *
> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> > 2007) $
> > */
> >
> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> where
> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> > problem with me doing this at this time.
> >
> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> We're next week now :)
>
> Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
> - Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
> - Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
> - Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
> - Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
> - Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
> - Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
>
> 5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
>
> Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
>
>
Yep, I don't think we should do it.
No one has given any even vaguely compelling reasons for using them but for
them to have the very occasional usefulness _everyone_ has to always have it
set up which will inevitably go wrong occasionally for someone which makes
them completely unreliable anyway - how do you know that src you're looking
at isn't one of the files which has been corrupted by someone with a bad
environment? And it adds just another cause of negative emails to the ML
when complaining that someone has done it wrong. All that is exactly what
used to happen in the bad old days when we did use them.
Doesn't using svn info work as a replacement in a lot of circumstances
anyway? And if not then what are the circumstances where you're having to
look at src out of version control or out of a released distro? This _is_
open source so its normal to have access to the version control system not
like in closed src dev when its more likely there'll be uncontrolled src
floating around.
And its yet another burden to place on Tuscany development, i just don't
understand the feeling that somehow things would be better if we had more
formal processes and procedures in place - not having many of those it what
I like about developing at Apache.
...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Mark Combellack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
> headers but others do not.
>
> As an example, @version might look like:
>
> /**
> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> *
> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> 2007) $
> */
>
> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where
> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> problem with me doing this at this time.
>
> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
We're next week now :)
Here's a summary of what I've seen in that thread so far:
- Mark would like to help add SVN revision headers to all files
- Vamsi +0.5 and suggests to set up to add headers to new files
- Luciano +1 and agrees to set up SVN and IDE for this
- Ant prefers not to this, not useful and clutters up the code
- Sebastien +1 and also suggests to set up our IDEs for this
- Simon would it find useful and also happy to set up his IDE
5 people seem to be reaching consensus, 1 prefers not to do it.
Ant, do you still have any objections against doing this?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
> Mark Combellack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> JavaDoc
> > headers but others do not.
> >
> > As an example, @version might look like:
> >
> > /**
> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > *
> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> > 2007) $
> > */
> >
> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> where
> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> > problem with me doing this at this time.
> >
> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
>
> I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
> doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
> are with this?
>
> I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
> it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
> ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
>
> Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
> less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
> break anything...
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
I'm still happy to make this change but I held off doing so since there does
not seem to be a consensus on the subject at the moment.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
<snip>
* 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.
>
>From what everyone has said so far the above seem like the only real
justification for where these might be useful, and I'm sceptical whether
users really would care or use these as from what i've seen they say things
like "it broke in 1.1" or "it worked last week" and don't go down to
mentioning individual class files let alone revisions of the file, and
usually don't post whole class files to bug reports. Anyway, I'm obviously
in a minority on this so if everyone else really really wants to add these i
wont get in the way. How would that work - it would be manditory to add them
to each new file and everyone must have their SVN client configured so the
correct SVN properties get set?
...ant
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
Fantastic news ant :-)
Thanks for your offer of help to update the templates. I appreciate that.
All we need now is SVN commit access and I can get started.
Thanks,
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ant elder [mailto:ant.elder@gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 April 2008 13:54
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; mcombellack@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
> Yes i think we have consensus to do this now, and as a sign of good faith
> i'll help by (as soon as we get SVN write access back) adding the keywords
> to the IDE templates we have in SVN and adding text to the developer guide
> on what is required to set up our SVN clients to correctly set the svn
> properties on new files.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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:mcombellack@apache.org]
> > > 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:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
> > >
> > > > Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04
> > >
> > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > >
> > > > 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 <an...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
> > >
> > > > <c1...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Yes i think we have consensus to do this now, and as a sign of good faith
i'll help by (as soon as we get SVN write access back) adding the keywords
to the IDE templates we have in SVN and adding text to the developer guide
on what is required to set up our SVN clients to correctly set the svn
properties on new files.
...ant
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> 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:mcombellack@apache.org]
> > 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:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
> >
> > > Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04
> >
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> >
> > > 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 <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
> >
> > > <c1...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > > 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
> >
> > > >
>
>
>
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
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:mcombellack@apache.org]
> 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:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
>
> > Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04
>
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
>
> > 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 <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
>
> > <c1...@gmail.com>
>
> > > 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
>
> > >
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
Regarding whether or not we have consensus and whether we should hold
> a vote, consensus is not the same as unanimity. I think we need to
> make a decision on this issue (which is relatively minor) and move
> forward. Holding a vote seems to be a reasonable way to do this.
>
Consensus is not the same as unanimity but that doesn't mean voting is the
way to resolve disagreements, you just have to look at the trouble doing
that has caused in the project when its happened in the past. A definition I
like for consensus is:
"A decision making process whereby decisions are reached when all members
present consent to a proposal. This process does not assume everyone must be
in complete agreement. When differences remain after discussion, individuals
can agree to disagree, that is, give their consent by standing aside, and
allow the proposal to be accepted by the group."
If someone who's an important part of the project (ie a PMC member?) doesn't
agree with something enough to refuse to stand aside then maybe in most
cases its best to just find another way. Thats one of the reasons I think we
should be a bit discerning about who we make PMC members - so that we trust
each other enough to know it most cases we would stand aside and if we wont
then for everyone to be able to respect that.
...ant
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Mark Combellack wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Thanks for this explanation, and for bringing in the user perspective.
I can see that having expanded version information may be useful in
this user context. It is not very useful to me as a developer, and
it can hurt me with applying patches if I enable the keyword expansion,
but I can turn this expansion off in my SVN client to suit my preference.
Taking all of this into account, I am +1 on this change.
Regarding whether or not we have consensus and whether we should hold
a vote, consensus is not the same as unanimity. I think we need to
make a decision on this issue (which is relatively minor) and move
forward. Holding a vote seems to be a reasonable way to do this.
Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
>
>> Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04
>
>> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
>
>> 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 <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
>
>> <c1...@gmail.com>
>
>>> 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
>
>
>
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
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:c1vamsi1c@gmail.com]
> Sent: 24 April 2008 08:04
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> 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 <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
> <c1...@gmail.com>
> > 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
> >
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>
> 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
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>
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
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> Mark Combellack wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> > > Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
> > >
> > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> > > > some
> > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > >
> > > JavaDoc
> > >
> > > > headers but others do not.
> > > >
> > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > *
> > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> > > > Nov
> > > > 2007) $
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> > > > header
> > > >
> > > where
> > >
> > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
> > > > the
> > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
> > > > had a
> > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > >
> > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
> > > doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where
> > > we
> > > are with this?
> > >
> > > I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see
> > > that
> > > it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
> > > ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
> > >
> > > Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd
> > > take
> > > less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
> > > break anything...
> > > --
> > > Jean-Sebastien
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a
> > "consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this subject.
> >
> > In summary of this thread, we have:
> >
> > +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
> >
> > ant prefers not to do this
> >
> > Simon says he would find it useful.
> >
> > I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which
> an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following
> in reply:
>
> "Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable.
> Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having
> the same information within the file itself."
>
> So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also,
> my experience today with patch application indicates that there can
> be a downside.
>
>
> > 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.
++Vamsi
I'd prefer to turn
> the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given
> that the information is so easily available by other means.
>
> Simon
>
>
> I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this
> > week.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Luciano's perspective.
- Venkat
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Considering this has been there in several files for a while, and it
> really does not affect anyone that does not want to use the extra one
> line of information on the top of the java file. Why not let other
> that see some benefits on this to use it ?
>
> I'm still +1 on this.
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Combellack wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> > > > Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
> > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
> > > >
> > > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> > some
> > > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > > >
> > > > JavaDoc
> > > >
> > > > > headers but others do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > > *
> > > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun,
> 25
> > Nov
> > > > > 2007) $
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this
> header
> > > > >
> > > > where
> > > >
> > > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes
> to
> > the
> > > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one
> had
> > a
> > > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
> > > > doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where
> we
> > > > are with this?
> > > >
> > > > I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see
> that
> > > > it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
> > > > ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd
> take
> > > > less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which
> don't
> > > > break anything...
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Sebastien
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have
> a
> > > "consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this
> subject.
> > >
> > > In summary of this thread, we have:
> > >
> > > +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
> > >
> > > ant prefers not to do this
> > >
> > > Simon says he would find it useful.
> > >
> > >
> > I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which
> > an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following
> > in reply:
> >
> >
> > "Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable.
> > Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having
> > the same information within the file itself."
> >
> > So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also,
> > my experience today with patch application indicates that there can
> > be a downside.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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. I'd prefer to turn
> > the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given
> > that the information is so easily available by other means.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later
> this
> > > week.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Considering this has been there in several files for a while, and it
really does not affect anyone that does not want to use the extra one
line of information on the top of the java file. Why not let other
that see some benefits on this to use it ?
I'm still +1 on this.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Mark Combellack wrote:
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> > > Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
> > >
> > > Mark Combellack wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that
> some
> > > > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > > >
> > > JavaDoc
> > >
> > > > headers but others do not.
> > > >
> > > > As an example, @version might look like:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > > > *
> > > > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> Nov
> > > > 2007) $
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> > > >
> > > where
> > >
> > > > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
> the
> > > > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had
> a
> > > > problem with me doing this at this time.
> > > >
> > > > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
> > > doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
> > > are with this?
> > >
> > > I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
> > > it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
> > > ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
> > >
> > > Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
> > > less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
> > > break anything...
> > > --
> > > Jean-Sebastien
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a
> > "consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this subject.
> >
> > In summary of this thread, we have:
> >
> > +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
> >
> > ant prefers not to do this
> >
> > Simon says he would find it useful.
> >
> >
> I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which
> an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following
> in reply:
>
>
> "Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable.
> Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having
> the same information within the file itself."
>
> So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also,
> my experience today with patch application indicates that there can
> be a downside.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > 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. I'd prefer to turn
> the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given
> that the information is so easily available by other means.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> > I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this
> > week.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Mark Combellack wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
>> Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
>> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>>
>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>>> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>> JavaDoc
>>> headers but others do not.
>>>
>>> As an example, @version might look like:
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * Some JavaDoc for the class
>>> *
>>> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
>>> 2007) $
>>> */
>>>
>>> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> where
>>> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
>>> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
>>> problem with me doing this at this time.
>>>
>>> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>> I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
>> doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
>> are with this?
>>
>> I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
>> it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
>> ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
>>
>> Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
>> less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
>> break anything...
>> --
>> Jean-Sebastien
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
> This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a
> "consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this subject.
>
> In summary of this thread, we have:
>
> +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
>
> ant prefers not to do this
>
> Simon says he would find it useful.
>
I did say this, but there was subsequent discussion in which
an alternative aproach was suggested, and I said the following
in reply:
"Thanks. This seems pretty easy to do, and it's 100% reliable.
Now I have discovered this, I don't see any great advantage in having
the same information within the file itself."
So my view is that there is not much value in doing this. Also,
my experience today with patch application indicates that there can
be a downside.
>
>>>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. I'd prefer to turn
the question around and ask what is the value in adding this, given
that the information is so easily available by other means.
Simon
> I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this
> week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I guess you missed my +1. :-)
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Combellack" <mc...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:15 AM
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
>> Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
>> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>>
>> Mark Combellack wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
>> JavaDoc
>> > headers but others do not.
>> >
>> > As an example, @version might look like:
>> >
>> > /**
>> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
>> > *
>> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
>> > Nov
>> > 2007) $
>> > */
>> >
>> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> where
>> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to
>> > the
>> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had
>> > a
>> > problem with me doing this at this time.
>> >
>> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
>> doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
>> are with this?
>>
>> I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
>> it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
>> ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
>>
>> Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
>> less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
>> break anything...
>> --
>> Jean-Sebastien
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
> This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a
> "consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this subject.
>
> In summary of this thread, we have:
>
> +1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
>
> ant prefers not to do this
>
> Simon says he would find it useful.
>
>
> 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.
>
> I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this
> week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
RE: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
> Sent: 15 April 2008 02:59
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
>
> Mark Combellack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> JavaDoc
> > headers but others do not.
> >
> > As an example, @version might look like:
> >
> > /**
> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > *
> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> > 2007) $
> > */
> >
> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> where
> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> > problem with me doing this at this time.
> >
> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
>
> I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
> doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
> are with this?
>
> I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
> it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
> ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
>
> Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
> less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
> break anything...
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
This topic appears to have gone quiet. I guess this means that we have a
"consensus" since there appears to be no active debate on this subject.
In summary of this thread, we have:
+1 from Mark, Vasmi, Luciano and Sebastian.
ant prefers not to do this
Simon says he would find it useful.
>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.
I'll hold off making the changes for a few days and then start later this
week.
Thanks,
Mark
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
+1 on adding the missing revision headers.
++Vamsi
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> Mark Combellack wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their
> > JavaDoc
> > headers but others do not.
> >
> > As an example, @version might look like:
> >
> > /**
> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > * * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25
> > Nov
> > 2007) $
> > */
> >
> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> > where
> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> > problem with me doing this at this time.
> >
> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
> doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we are
> with this?
>
> I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
> it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound ideal,
> so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
>
> Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
> less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't break
> anything...
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Mark Combellack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
> headers but others do not.
>
> As an example, @version might look like:
>
> /**
> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> *
> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> 2007) $
> */
>
> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where
> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> problem with me doing this at this time.
>
> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
I'm replying again to the original message in this thread, as there
doesn't seem to be any conclusion yet. Does anybody understand where we
are with this?
I'm usually adding the SVN rev tag to the files I touch when I see that
it's missing. I guess I can continue like that but it doesn't sound
ideal, so I'm still +1 on Mark's proposal.
Anyway, Mark Thanks for volunteering to do this. I was hoping it'd take
less than 3 weeks to reach consensus on changes like that which don't
break anything...
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> If Mark is willing to check the missing files, +1 for the updates. I
> do find this useful from time to time.
>
> I also agree that developers should configure their IDE and SVN to
> proper add the tags and any necessary SVN properties to make this
> work.
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
> <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +0.5
>>
>> These numbers are expected to help in quickly getting to the revision in
>> which these files are modified. So, if the last revision on the file just
>> added this header, it is not of much use. I would suggest that instead of
>> making a change to just add these headers, we add these headers in the new
>> files and any existing files as we add/modify files. This is a practice I
>> follow for my Geronimo commits.
>>
>> Also, the committer's machine should have the the subversion client
>> properties set appropriately so that these svn:keywords get added to the
>> newly created files. These settings help in avoiding explicitly adding the
>> svn:keywords on newly created files. See [1].
>>
>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html
>>
>> ++Vamsi
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
>> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
>> > headers but others do not.
>> >
>> > As an example, @version might look like:
>> >
>> > /**
>> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
>> > *
>> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
>> > 2007) $
>> > */
>> >
>> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
>> > where
>> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
>> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
>> > problem with me doing this at this time.
>> >
>> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
I haven't used this information yet, probably because it's not
always reliably available. If we were all maintaining it with
our checkins, I think I would find it useful. I am happy to
get myself set up correctly to add it to files that I create.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
If Mark is willing to check the missing files, +1 for the updates. I
do find this useful from time to time.
I also agree that developers should configure their IDE and SVN to
proper add the tags and any necessary SVN properties to make this
work.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
<c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +0.5
>
> These numbers are expected to help in quickly getting to the revision in
> which these files are modified. So, if the last revision on the file just
> added this header, it is not of much use. I would suggest that instead of
> making a change to just add these headers, we add these headers in the new
> files and any existing files as we add/modify files. This is a practice I
> follow for my Geronimo commits.
>
> Also, the committer's machine should have the the subversion client
> properties set appropriately so that these svn:keywords get added to the
> newly created files. These settings help in avoiding explicitly adding the
> svn:keywords on newly created files. See [1].
>
> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> > files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
> > headers but others do not.
> >
> > As an example, @version might look like:
> >
> > /**
> > * Some JavaDoc for the class
> > *
> > * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> > 2007) $
> > */
> >
> > I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> > where
> > it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> > Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> > problem with me doing this at this time.
> >
> > I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
+0.5
These numbers are expected to help in quickly getting to the revision in
which these files are modified. So, if the last revision on the file just
added this header, it is not of much use. I would suggest that instead of
making a change to just add these headers, we add these headers in the new
files and any existing files as we add/modify files. This is a practice I
follow for my Geronimo commits.
Also, the committer's machine should have the the subversion client
properties set appropriately so that these svn:keywords get added to the
newly created files. These settings help in avoiding explicitly adding the
svn:keywords on newly created files. See [1].
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html
++Vamsi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
> headers but others do not.
>
> As an example, @version might look like:
>
> /**
> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> *
> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> 2007) $
> */
>
> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> where
> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> problem with me doing this at this time.
>
> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
I'd prefer not to do this. I've never found these useful and think they just
clutter up the code.
...ant
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Mark Combellack <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
> headers but others do not.
>
> As an example, @version might look like:
>
> /**
> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> *
> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> 2007) $
> */
>
> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header
> where
> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> problem with me doing this at this time.
>
> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Mark Combellack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking through the Tuscany source code and noticed that some
> files have a @version containing the SVN revision number in their JavaDoc
> headers but others do not.
>
> As an example, @version might look like:
>
> /**
> * Some JavaDoc for the class
> *
> * @version $Rev: 598005 $ $Date: 2007-11-25 16:36:27 +0000 (Sun, 25 Nov
> 2007) $
> */
>
> I would like to go through the Tuscany source code and add this header where
> it is missing. This would involve a large number of minor changes to the
> Tuscany tree so I wanted to run it by everyone to make sure no-one had a
> problem with me doing this at this time.
>
> I'll probably start this next week unless there is an objection.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
+1 from me. Thanks for looking into that Mark!
Also, It would be nice if all contributors could configure their IDE
templates to insert the version in new files in the future.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org