On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:01 AM, David Jencks wrote:I was looking at the generated xbean site prior to releasing and noticed the version looks pretty messy with lots of random variations. I think we've previously encouraged something like this:* @version $Rev:$ $Date:$which expands to something like* @version $Rev: 437551 $ $Date: 2006-08-27 23:14:47 -0700 (Sun, 27 Aug 2006) $which ends up in javadoc as something like
- $Rev$ $Date$or
- $Rev: 437551 $ $Date: 2006-08-27 23:14:47 -0700 (Sun, 27 Aug 2006) $This seems wrong to me. I think in javadoc the version ought to be something like 3.6-SNAPSHOT or 3.6.So, I'd like to propose that:1. we investigate and find out if there's a way to set the javadoc version to the maven version. If so, use it. If not, remove the @version.2. Decide if we want the svn keyword info in the java files at all, and if so get it out from the @version javadoc tag.What do other projects do? It's always been my understanding that the @version relates to the version of the code file and not the release.
1.39, 02/28/97" (mm/dd/yy) when the file is checked out of SCCS.
A doc comment may contain multiple
If it makes sense, you can specify one version number per
@version tag or multiple version numbers per tag.
In the former case, the Javadoc tool inserts a comma (
and space between names. In the latter case, the entire text is
simply copied to the generated document without being parsed.
Therefore, you can use multiple names per line if you want a localized
name separator other than comma.