james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
Subject RE: New Redirect & sons becoming available
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:03:34 GMT
I'd be tempted to use the CVS revision number for file version and James or Mailet build version
for @since

Try putting this in to make CVS update the version number itself..
$Id$
it is replaced with something like this: (this actually gives a lot of information, the file
DDL2XML.java is in revision 1.5, commited by me on 25 march at five to three)
$Id: DDL2XML.java,v 1.5 2003/03/25 14:54:15 danny Exp $
which appears as "Version: $Id: DDL2XML.java,v 1.5 2003/03/25 14:54:15 danny Exp $" in the
javadocs.

d.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini
> [mailto:vincenzo.gianferraripini@praxis.it]
> Sent: 05 June 2003 11:20
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: New Redirect & sons becoming available
> 
> 
> > > One general question: I have not seen any @since and very few @version
> > > javadoc tags in the James code. Wouldn't it be useful? I tend to 
> > > use it very
> > > consistently in my code.
> > 
> > Then use it here :-)
> 
> OK. I had not done it right because nobody was doing it, and 
> didn't want to look "fanatic" :-)
> 
> Which "policy" to use to be consistent? I imagine using the James 
> version (the build in "in preparation" - currently 2.2.0) for 
> @version in any modified java source, and inserting the related 
> @since for any new one. Or there is any other numbering scheme 
> being used that would make sense? Looking in CVS I see one, which 
> is the rationale being used?
> 
> Thank you for the +1 :-)
> 
> Vincenzo
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
Mime
View raw message