You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@apache.org> on 2008/04/02 11:33:31 UTC
Re: Adding SVN version to Java files
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>.
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
> >
> >
>