Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of garydgregory@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=Y3vTQqiMcblSCmTx/f+kxwrpz16q/+m7lLvXw6zidirpCPK4NG4ZJG04LipvCoXq2N
         rueOnXBkw3jJ7OhlcWqg/v7/4ICkdfIFfjODkrRIkGvpnf+i0zTAZamQSU0Zw7sNaU1p
         CA0oQIvD27s4TfXlgfYLYML3zMEfdpopFePSo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik9ttLev1HDwEKWE+feak+Vckj_0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=p_kiYFR=z7n=3-s3RFfivaw+www@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimffN7djEeHa5o5qa3ht5=RBHDtUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=hUZndDBYarLpTpdzO--AM9tQCYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim0CLPNDHmG0nwig1Snhx43qjwL_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim8FUpkiOywv7ZZ5+eAOqjtAHmyqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik9ttLev1HDwEKWE+feak+Vckj_0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:58:41 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=iXiDKTcAzs9v_E9c6Xtd4t-Rvkg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ALL] @version tag :)
From: Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Cc: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6153ae0ff2aa04a02c46b0

--90e6ba6153ae0ff2aa04a02c46b0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:19 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5 April 2011 10:44, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 April 2011 09:55, Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Hi all guys!
> >>
> >> @Torsten: I agree, question is that I have never understood why the
> >> common usage is putting SVN tags in @version javadoc, so since I
> >> noticed a mixed usage, I wondered which one is the commonly used;
> >>
> >> @Christian: I intended @version, because existing source have *a lot*
> >> of that tag; for @since instead the common usage seems to be correct
> >>
> >> BTW I would be +1 for NO @version and putting only @since
> >
> > I think the intention of the @version tag is to identify code that is
> > not stored in SVN - e.g. in a source archive.
> >
> > $Revision$ and $Id$ (or even $HeadUrl) are fine in @version comments,
> > however please don't use $Date$ as that is expressed in local time.
> > This really messes up release checking as the dates in source archives
> > don't match the dates in SVN tag checkouts unless the same timezone is
> > being used.
>
> In case it's not obvious, I am
>
> -1 to banning @version, as it can be useful
>

Since $Id$ contains the user ID we I would an @version that contains the
revision number. I find that useful. I like to see a revision number in the
manifest too (if it's not there already), like
http://maven.apache.org/plugin-developers/cookbook/add-svn-revision-to-manifest.html

Gary


> +1 to banning $Date$ in @version
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

--90e6ba6153ae0ff2aa04a02c46b0--