harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Etienne Gagnon <egag...@sablevm.org>
Subject Re: [classlib] Preprocessor - CHECKPOINT
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:05:47 GMT
Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>Agreed.  It would be interesting to determine the most effective
>>>location for those markers (measured by reverse mapping accuracy vs.
>>>number of markers).
>>I am a fan of accuracy...  Yet, maybe it would be simple enough if a
>>release was always based on a specific svn URL, then the mark could be
>>totally exact using svn keywords... :-)
> You lost me here.  I'm trying to define tie-points between the
> 'releasetarget' source and the canonical form.  AIUI this will require
> structured comments in the 'releasetarget', right?

Heh!  I'm proposing another "unusual" markup that would be least intrusive.

I'm proposing to simply use "precise svn url/version identification" as

 * @ProcessIdentification(j2se,release)
 * @ProcessURL(https://svn.apache.org/repos/harmony/somepath/XXX.java)
 * @ProcessRevision(144)
 * This tells us that this file is the result of:
 * process(svn cat -r revision url, j2serelease)

/* releasetarget code, WITHOUT any additional markup:-) */

As long as we are *sure* that the releasetarget code was built from
precisely that url/version (without any "local workspace" modification)
then it should be as precise as having markups everywhere in the source
code. :-)

Of course, this adds a (small?) dependence on Subversion, but the gains
in markup noise reduction seems to be worth the trouble.


Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.            http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/

View raw message