geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <>
Subject RE: Standard @version tags
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:11:33 GMT
This one time, at band camp, Cabrera, Alan said:

CA>Given the evaluation criteria of, if all other things are equal, making the
CA>code easier to read and comprehend should be a priority, I think that this
CA>is a good idea.
CA>-----Original Message-----
CA>From: David Blevins [] 
CA>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 5:48 AM
CA>Subject: Re: Standard @version tags
CA>On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:18:19AM +0100, Alex Blewitt wrote:
CA>> To revisit some of the earlier discussions regarding this:
CA>> o We don't include author, because it's accessible from the CVS log o 
CA>> Since we can also find out the date from the CVS log, there's no point 
CA>> in having that in the source code as well
CA>> It seemed to be the case that using $Date$ was therefore redundant,
CA>> because you could easily find out how old the source was from CVS.
CA>Not to point out the obvious, but all $foo$ tags are available from cvs log.
CA>I personally like the $Id$ tag which gives you everything.  Yes, it's easy
CA>to check cvs log on one file, but a hundred files?
CA>The $Id$ tag (and other cvs tag) may be bothersome to committers, but it's a
CA>tremendous convenience to the thousands of users who may be looking through
CA>the source.

I spoke up and said that I prefer this as well. But as I sent the message
it occurred to me that the reason this keyword is not being used is due
to the HUGE debate over the @author tag (remember that $Id$ includes the
last person who checked in the file). Jeremy politely reminded me of this.
Hence my vote of $Revision$ $Date$. 

perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'

The Castor Project

Apache Geronimo

View raw message