Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 216.119.133.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: <50092F89.8020008@googlemail.com>
 <1342813926.30275.YahooMailNeo@web113510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1342813926.30275.YahooMailNeo@web113510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Coding guideline or common rules
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:22:54 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <002e01cd66bd$d4b70a30$7e251e90$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQFmS1ArxCPoLdNuC5G0I4UR3HAQhQFG3vdXl/aeBPA=
Content-Language: en-us

I've seen the comment about SCMs being sufficient for tracing the =
provenance of code and the changes that are made.  That puzzles me.

 - History doesn't appear in source-code tarballs.
 - It requires the original SCM repository or a history-preserving port =
of the SCN to be available to interested parties.

Basically, it is not a durable form of the information.

Just sayin' ...

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]=20
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:52
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coding guideline or common rules

FWIW;


----- Original Message -----
...
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> I just stumbled over a commit message for the new UOF filter.
>=20
> I think we should agree on a common guideline for our code and how we
> contribute changes and bring them in the code.
>=20
> SCM's manage the change sets and the information who made the change,
> that means we don't need further comments like this
>=20
> ///Begin Added by wangyumin for uof2-filter from cs2c
> ...
> /// End Added by wangyumin on 2012-2-22 14:32:18
>=20
> It is somewhat redundant and makes the code not really better =
readable.
> Can we agree on the common understanding that we don't need such
> comments and that we don't want them in the code. We should remove =
such
> comments wherever we see or find them.
>=20

Indeed, I did mention in our local svn tutorial that those comments =
should be
avoided. SVN does a wonderful job maintaining the origin information.

> Any opinions?


As a side note, I recently found similar prominent begin/end lines in =
another
project and the culprit on that project was the GPLv2 section 2a:

"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change."


It's probable that old code from GPLd derivatives still carry such =
notes.

Someone will have to clean them ;).

Pedro.