Re: Presence of * @version $Revision: 905028 $ javadoc in code

[Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>]

Hi,
Working on the 58653, I see an additional reason to remove the $Revision,
it's in the difference that it introduces in files when you compare GIT
repo source with SVN Repo source.
You get a difference on all the files that contain $Revision because GIT
will contain "@version $Revision$" while SVN code will contain "@version
$Revision: 1698378 $".

So unless there is a good reason to keep them I would rather remove them.

Regards

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:56 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11 November 2015 at 15:55, Felix Schumacher
> <fe...@internetallee.de> wrote:
> > Am 11.11.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> >> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 11.11.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> Any feedback on this ?
> >>>> Is there a technical reason except for SaveService why those $Revision
> >>>> are
> >>>> here ?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think for maintainbility they should be removed where they are
> >>>> useless.
>
> They don't need maintenance.
>
> >>>>
> >>> As long as we are on svn, they do no harm, do they? So I am +-0 on
> >>> removing them.
> >>>
> >> Is it because you think regressions might be introduced ? In fact that's
> >> why I want to remove them.
> >
> > I can't see a regression in both ways, that's why I am +-0 to this
> change.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> For SaveService, it annoys me, that the tests fail, when run from a
> >>> git-repo. I think, we could change the usage of $Revision to a sha1 sum
> >>> (or
> >>> sha256, for what it's worth), and compute the sum on reading the
> >>> properties
> >>> file.
> >>>
> >>> I agree. On our company repo, we replaced Revision id by a number and
> >>
> >> tests do not fails, so I think a SHA256 should work.
> >
> > See https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601
> >
> > All tests complete correctly in my git repo.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Felix
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> If no one objects, I will give that a try.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>   Felix
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Philippe
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If they are useless why keep them ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have coding style strategies that say that :
> >>>>> - empty comments should be removed
> >>>>> - dead code should be removed
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So if there are useless, they should be removed ? Even if they do not
> >>>>> harm
> >>>>> (as Empty comment do not hurt neither).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unless there is a good reason, for example related to the svn to git
> >>>>> migration .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Philippe
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 5:47 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why remove the marker?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it doing any harm?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 17 October 2015 at 14:36, Philippe Mouawad
> >>>>>> <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>> Any feedback on this ?
> >>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>> Some classes contain this javadoc.
> >>>>>>>> But a lot do not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Except for SaveService there does not seem to be any need of this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I propose to remove it from code.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>> Philippe
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Cordialement.
> >>>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Cordialement.
> >>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.