commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:24:52 GMT
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <> wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <> wrote:
>>> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <> wrote:
>>>> Author: britter
>>>> Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>>>> New Revision: 1452037
>>>> URL:
>>>> 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

> 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.


> Mark

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message