You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@commons.apache.org by br...@apache.org on 2013/03/03 14:25:24 UTC
svn commit: r1452037 -
/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Author: britter
Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
New Revision: 1452037
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
Log:
Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
Modified:
commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (contents, props changed)
Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (original)
+++ commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
@@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
+/**
+ * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
+ *
+ * <p />
+ * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
+ * <p />
+ *
+ * @version $Revision$ $Date$
+ */
public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
Propchange: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- svn:keywords (added)
+++ svn:keywords Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Revision
+Date
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Niall, thanks for stepping in for me. It felt harsh to me too to see the
veto, especially when having the the committers guide [1] in mind that
states
"In extreme situations, it may be necessary to veto (-1) a commit but
please beware that this is an extreme sanction and rarely warranted."
This maybe why I reacted a bit petulantly at first. Nevertheless Sebb
usually takes a close look at commits and I think this is very important
for the quality of the code base.
Mark, thanks for pointing out what we need the keywords for. Before I read
your mail I always thought they just replicate meta data that is available
through the SVN client. Now I see why it is important to have the $Id$ in
place.
Benedikt
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
2013/3/8 Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> Author: britter
> >>>> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> >>>> New Revision: 1452037
> >>>>
> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> >>>> Log:
> >>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
> >>>
> >>> -1
> >>>
> >>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> >>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> >> It is also an
> >> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
> >> question of style.
> >
> > I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one.
> > Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source
> > tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting
> > on releases.
>
> This IMO is not a technical justification, but a bureaucratic one and
> I still believe casting a veto on documentation style is not valid
> IMO.
>
> > One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
> > release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different
> > client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
> > different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
> > file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling
> > the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>
> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
> been created from the tag - otherwise we trust our release managers.
> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
> released. But back to the main point here, I don't object to anyone
> with the desire to do this making the change - but I do disagree with
> it being a veto.
>
> Niall
>
> > Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2013/3/9 Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit
> and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the
> veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the
> world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1
> but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
> > already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
> > see that creep back in again.
>
> This is a discussion which seems to come up from time to time, like
> the @author tag thing and so on.
> Should we start a Wiki page with that kind of decisions? I think it
> would be useful, esp for new people. I think Benedikt has asked for
> such kind of docs recently.
>
I have documented both, the use of SVN keywords and @author tags in the
wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CodeStyle.
Benedikt
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip/>
> >>>
> >>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
> >>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
> >>>> Different
> >>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
> >>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
> >>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
> >>>> tooling
> >>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
> >>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
> >>>> been created from the tag
> >>>
> >>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
> >>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
> >>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
> >>> providing the files agree.
> >>>
> >>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
> >>>
> >>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
> >>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although
> if
> >>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
> >>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
> >>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat
> but
> >>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
> >>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
> >>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
> >>> build.properties etc)
> >>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for
> tar.gz)
> >>> - local edits to the source files
> >>>
> >>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
> >>> that should cause the release to fail.
> >>>
> >>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
> >>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
> >>>> released.
> >>>
> >>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
> >>> same locale you won't see the issue.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
> see that creep back in again.
This is a discussion which seems to come up from time to time, like
the @author tag thing and so on.
Should we start a Wiki page with that kind of decisions? I think it
would be useful, esp for new people. I think Benedikt has asked for
such kind of docs recently.
Cheers
Christian
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>> Different
>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>> tooling
>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>
>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>> been created from the tag
>>>
>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>> providing the files agree.
>>>
>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>
>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>> build.properties etc)
>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>
>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>
>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>> released.
>>>
>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:32 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 March 2013 11:56, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
>>> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
>>> see that creep back in again.
>>
>> No, you miss the point - not "unnecessary" - it was an invalid veto
>> and you should be more circumspect about casting vetos.
>
> I think it's borderline.
No, not even close - it was an invalid veto - which have to be for
valid *technical* reasons.
> I would have voted -1 on the RC, because the tag would not agree with
> the source archive.
That IMO would have been unfortunate - but votes and vetos are two
completely different things - since a veto *forces" a change - whereas
a -1 vote is by majority and therefore doesn't mean the release would
have been stopped.
Niall
>> Niall
>>
>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>>>> Different
>>>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>>>> tooling
>>>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>>>> been created from the tag
>>>>>
>>>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>>>> providing the files agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>>>> build.properties etc)
>>>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>>>
>>>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
A -1 on a code modification proposal (in this case the code was already
changed, but i think it still applies) is called a veto by the ASF. If
accompanied by a valid technical justification, it stands (unless the
person can be talked out of it).
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> It seems to me that we are misusing the term veto. A release cannot be
> vetoes, it can be VOTEd on with a -1, which is not a veto, but is usually
> interpreted as one, by me, at least, as a courtesy to my fellow PMD member
> for putting the time in to care.
>
> You can -1 a commit which is not really a veto either because the change as
> already happened and requires someone to do the reverting.
>
> So maybe we should not get all hung up on vetoes.
>
> My beef around here is how $%@^ hard to is make publish a release :(
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, James Carman
> <jcarman@carmanconsulting.com <javascript:;>>wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:36 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > In which case, vetoing the commit that causes the problem makes more
> > > sense, surely?
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps we should set up a Sonar rule to catch stuff like this to save
> you
> > the trouble of trolling the SVN commit log messages.
> >
> > The veto was unnecessary. It's a wonder we keep any committers around
> > here.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org<javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org<javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com <javascript:;> | ggregory@apache.org<javascript:;>
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Hi All:
It seems to me that we are misusing the term veto. A release cannot be
vetoes, it can be VOTEd on with a -1, which is not a veto, but is usually
interpreted as one, by me, at least, as a courtesy to my fellow PMD member
for putting the time in to care.
You can -1 a commit which is not really a veto either because the change as
already happened and requires someone to do the reverting.
So maybe we should not get all hung up on vetoes.
My beef around here is how $%@^ hard to is make publish a release :(
Gary
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, James Carman
<jc...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:36 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In which case, vetoing the commit that causes the problem makes more
> > sense, surely?
> >
>
> Perhaps we should set up a Sonar rule to catch stuff like this to save you
> the trouble of trolling the SVN commit log messages.
>
> The veto was unnecessary. It's a wonder we keep any committers around
> here.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by James Carman <jc...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:36 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In which case, vetoing the commit that causes the problem makes more
> sense, surely?
>
Perhaps we should set up a Sonar rule to catch stuff like this to save you the trouble of trolling the SVN commit log messages.
The veto was unnecessary. It's a wonder we keep any committers around here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 12 March 2013 11:17, James Carman <jc...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2013, at 7:32 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would have voted -1 on the RC, because the tag would not agree with
>> the source archive.
>>
>
> However, releases cannot be vetoed.
In which case, vetoing the commit that causes the problem makes more
sense, surely?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by James Carman <jc...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Mar 9, 2013, at 7:32 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would have voted -1 on the RC, because the tag would not agree with
> the source archive.
>
However, releases cannot be vetoed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 March 2013 11:56, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
>> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
>> see that creep back in again.
>
> No, you miss the point - not "unnecessary" - it was an invalid veto
> and you should be more circumspect about casting vetos.
I think it's borderline.
I would have voted -1 on the RC, because the tag would not agree with
the source archive.
> Niall
>
>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>>> Different
>>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>>> tooling
>>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>>> been created from the tag
>>>>
>>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>>> providing the files agree.
>>>>
>>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>>
>>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>>> build.properties etc)
>>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>>
>>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>>
>>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>>> released.
>>>>
>>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
> see that creep back in again.
No, you miss the point - not "unnecessary" - it was an invalid veto
and you should be more circumspect about casting vetos.
Niall
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>> Different
>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>> tooling
>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>
>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>> been created from the tag
>>>
>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>> providing the files agree.
>>>
>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>
>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>> build.properties etc)
>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>
>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>
>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>> released.
>>>
>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>
>>> Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
Thanks.
Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
see that creep back in again.
> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>> Different
>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>> tooling
>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>
>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>> been created from the tag
>>
>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>> providing the files agree.
>>
>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>
>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>> build.properties etc)
>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>> - local edits to the source files
>>
>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>
>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>> released.
>>
>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto. If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again. Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
Ralph
On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>> Different
>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>> tooling
>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>
>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>> been created from the tag
>
> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
> providing the files agree.
>
>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>
> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
> build.properties etc)
> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
> - local edits to the source files
>
> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
> that should cause the release to fail.
>
>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>> released.
>
> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
> same locale you won't see the issue.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
[OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip/>
>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>Different
>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>tooling
>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>
>Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>been created from the tag
I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
providing the files agree.
> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
- missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
- extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
build.properties etc)
- wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
- local edits to the source files
Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
that should cause the release to fail.
>BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>released.
If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
same locale you won't see the issue.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Author: britter
>>>> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>>>> New Revision: 1452037
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>>>> Log:
>>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
>>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>
> <snip/>
>
>> It is also an
>> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
>> question of style.
>
> I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one.
> Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source
> tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting
> on releases.
This IMO is not a technical justification, but a bureaucratic one and
I still believe casting a veto on documentation style is not valid
IMO.
> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different
> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling
> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
been created from the tag - otherwise we trust our release managers.
BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
released. But back to the main point here, I don't object to anyone
with the desire to do this making the change - but I do disagree with
it being a veto.
Niall
> Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: britter
>>> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>>> New Revision: 1452037
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>>> Log:
>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
<snip/>
> It is also an
> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
> question of style.
I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one.
Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source
tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting
on releases.
One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different
client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling
the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: britter
>> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>> New Revision: 1452037
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>> Log:
>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>
> -1
>
> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>
> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
I would just like to say that this is very heavy handed vetoing a
change like this over something that is so trivial. It is also an
invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
question of style. I would seriously advise you to be more circumspect
in how you chose to cast a veto.
Also, to Benedikt - remember this is a volunteer organisation and you
get to chose where you spend your volunteer hours. Unfortunately only
Sebb can withdraw his veto, but if I was you I would be saying to Sebb
"OK feel free to revert or change it if you wish"
Niall
>> Modified:
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (contents, props changed)
>>
>> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (original)
>> +++ commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>> @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
>>
>> import junit.framework.TestCase;
>>
>> +/**
>> + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
>> + *
>> + * <p />
>> + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
>> + * <p />
>> + *
>> + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
>> + */
>> public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
>>
>> public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
>>
>> Propchange: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --- svn:keywords (added)
>> +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +Revision
>> +Date
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2013/3/7 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> > I have changed this for Jira422TestCase.java in r1453986. As I said there
> > are a lot of classes that also use the combination of $Revision$ and
> > $Date$. I think I can go ahead and replace those also?
>
> Consistency is IMHO a good thing, and in that specific case I'd go
> ahead for $Id$ only
>
I've created BEANUTILS-437.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-437
>
> my 2 cents,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
> I have changed this for Jira422TestCase.java in r1453986. As I said there
> are a lot of classes that also use the combination of $Revision$ and
> $Date$. I think I can go ahead and replace those also?
Consistency is IMHO a good thing, and in that specific case I'd go
ahead for $Id$ only
my 2 cents,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
I have changed this for Jira422TestCase.java in r1453986. As I said there
are a lot of classes that also use the combination of $Revision$ and
$Date$. I think I can go ahead and replace those also?
Benedikt
2013/3/5 Benedikt Ritter <be...@gmail.com>
> I'm a bit short on time right now. I'll try to have another look on this,
> this weekend.
>
> Benedikt
>
> Send from my mobile device
>
> Am 04.03.2013 um 10:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>:
>
> >> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?
> >
> > no needs to revert, just update the sources according to Seb's suggestion
> >
> > alles gute,
> > -Simo
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> > http://www.99soft.org/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <be...@gmail.com>.
I'm a bit short on time right now. I'll try to have another look on this, this weekend.
Benedikt
Send from my mobile device
Am 04.03.2013 um 10:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>:
>> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>
> +1
>
>> Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?
>
> no needs to revert, just update the sources according to Seb's suggestion
>
> alles gute,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
+1
> Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?
no needs to revert, just update the sources according to Seb's suggestion
alles gute,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2013/3/3 sebb <se...@gmail.com>
> On 3 March 2013 19:27, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi sebb,
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/3 sebb <se...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > Author: britter
> >> > Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> >> > New Revision: 1452037
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> >> > Log:
> >> > Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
> >>
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> >> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
> >>
> >> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing. I've just aligned the SVN keywords to all the other
> > tests in the component.
> > Is there a commons wide convention on how to use SVN tags? Please point
> me
> > to documentation about this and I will change all classes according to
> that.
>
> I don't know if there is documentation, but it was all discussed and
> agreed on the dev list a year or so ago.
>
Would be nice to have this kind of things documented somewhere in the wiki.
I don't want to search the archives before every commit.
I have created BEANUTILS-430 [1] because a lot of files contain the $Date$
keyword.
Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?
Regards,
Benedikt
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-430
>
> > If there isn't a convention for all components it has to be discussed for
> > beanutils how SVN tags have to be changed. Please start a separate thread
> > for this discussion.
> >
> > TIA!
> > Benedikt
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Modified:
> >> >
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> (contents, props changed)
> >> >
> >> > Modified:
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> > URL:
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
> >> >
> >>
> ==============================================================================
> >> > ---
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> (original)
> >> > +++
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> >> > @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
> >> >
> >> > import junit.framework.TestCase;
> >> >
> >> > +/**
> >> > + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
> >> > + *
> >> > + * <p />
> >> > + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
> >> > + * <p />
> >> > + *
> >> > + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
> >> > + */
> >> > public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
> >> >
> >> > public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
> >> >
> >> > Propchange:
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> >
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > --- svn:keywords (added)
> >> > +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> >> > +Revision
> >> > +Date
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > http://github.com/britter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 March 2013 19:27, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi sebb,
>
>
> 2013/3/3 sebb <se...@gmail.com>
>
>> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Author: britter
>> > Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>> > New Revision: 1452037
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>> > Log:
>> > Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>>
>> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>>
>
> Thanks for reviewing. I've just aligned the SVN keywords to all the other
> tests in the component.
> Is there a commons wide convention on how to use SVN tags? Please point me
> to documentation about this and I will change all classes according to that.
I don't know if there is documentation, but it was all discussed and
agreed on the dev list a year or so ago.
> If there isn't a convention for all components it has to be discussed for
> beanutils how SVN tags have to be changed. Please start a separate thread
> for this discussion.
>
> TIA!
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> > Modified:
>> >
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> (contents, props changed)
>> >
>> > Modified:
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> > URL:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
>> >
>> ==============================================================================
>> > ---
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> (original)
>> > +++
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>> > @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
>> >
>> > import junit.framework.TestCase;
>> >
>> > +/**
>> > + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
>> > + *
>> > + * <p />
>> > + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
>> > + * <p />
>> > + *
>> > + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
>> > + */
>> > public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
>> >
>> > public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
>> >
>> > Propchange:
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --- svn:keywords (added)
>> > +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> > +Revision
>> > +Date
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi sebb,
2013/3/3 sebb <se...@gmail.com>
> On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: britter
> > Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> > New Revision: 1452037
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> > Log:
> > Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>
> -1
>
> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>
> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>
Thanks for reviewing. I've just aligned the SVN keywords to all the other
tests in the component.
Is there a commons wide convention on how to use SVN tags? Please point me
to documentation about this and I will change all classes according to that.
If there isn't a convention for all components it has to be discussed for
beanutils how SVN tags have to be changed. Please start a separate thread
for this discussion.
TIA!
Benedikt
>
> > Modified:
> >
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> (contents, props changed)
> >
> > Modified:
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> > URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > ---
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> (original)
> > +++
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> > @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
> >
> > import junit.framework.TestCase;
> >
> > +/**
> > + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
> > + *
> > + * <p />
> > + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
> > + * <p />
> > + *
> > + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
> > + */
> > public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
> >
> > public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
> >
> > Propchange:
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --- svn:keywords (added)
> > +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +Revision
> > +Date
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 March 2013 13:25, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: britter
> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> New Revision: 1452037
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> Log:
> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
-1
Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
$Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
> Modified:
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (contents, props changed)
>
> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (original)
> +++ commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
>
> import junit.framework.TestCase;
>
> +/**
> + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
> + *
> + * <p />
> + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
> + * <p />
> + *
> + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
> + */
> public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
>
> public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
>
> Propchange: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- svn:keywords (added)
> +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar 3 13:25:24 2013
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +Revision
> +Date
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org