commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:52:17 GMT
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 <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <britter@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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message