I have clarified examples in the Wiki and I've added lots of TODOs for
rules that must be defined to avoid subjective bias. Please review my changes and let's define an action plan: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=57901455&selectedPageVersions=15&selectedPageVersions=14 I'd rather overspecify than underspecify. Regards, *Raúl Kripalani* PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging Engineer http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have clarified examples in the Wiki and I've added lots of TODOs for > rules that must be defined to avoid subjective bias. > > Please review my changes and let's define an action plan: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=57901455&selectedPageVersions=15&selectedPageVersions=14 > > I'd rather overspecify than underspecify. > Raul, do we really need to require the @author tag? I think it should be optional. > > Regards, > > *Raúl Kripalani* > PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and > Messaging Engineer > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote: > Raul, do we really need to require the @author tag? I think it should be > optional. > That's what the coding style said: "Every type should start with at least minimal Javadoc comments including description and author information in the following form:" All I did was fix the example in accordance with the rule. Now you see where I'm coming from – huh? ;-) NOTE: I personally dislike this coding style, so this task of helping the community improve the definitions of something I dislike is arduous for me. I'm more akin to Google's Java style: https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html. It's more commonplace, neutral and less rigid. Regards, *Raúl Kripalani* PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging Engineer http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk |
In reply to this post by dsetrakyan
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:22PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I have clarified examples in the Wiki and I've added lots of TODOs for > > rules that must be defined to avoid subjective bias. > > > > Please review my changes and let's define an action plan: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=57901455&selectedPageVersions=15&selectedPageVersions=14 > > > > I'd rather overspecify than underspecify. > > > > Raul, do we really need to require the @author tag? I think it should be > optional. I can not find the proof-link right now, but I believe @author isn't option - it shouldn't be used at all. There reason is purely legal: the code belongs to the Apache, so stating ownership otherwise simply should not happen. Cos |
I never use @author tags in other projects – but it was a requirement in
Ignite's Coding Style, that's why I added it to the example. I'm -1 for @author tags, in fact. They not useful for code maintenance (as the body of the @authored block can change line by line – better use git blame or git log to find out who the author was) nor for meritocracy purposes, as no one will dig in so deep and we already have a Team page to list participants. |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:09PM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
> I never use @author tags in other projects – but it was a requirement in > Ignite's Coding Style, that's why I added it to the example. Good spotting and it needs to be removed of course. Thanks for bringing this up! > I'm -1 for @author tags, in fact. They not useful for code maintenance (as > the body of the @authored block can change line by line – better use git > blame or git log to find out who the author was) nor for meritocracy > purposes, as no one will dig in so deep and we already have a Team page to > list participants. yup. Cos |
In reply to this post by Raul Kripalani
I think no one will object to removing the @author tag from the guidelines. I think it is there right now by mistake.
Dmitriy > On Sep 29, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I never use @author tags in other projects – but it was a requirement in > Ignite's Coding Style, that's why I added it to the example. > > I'm -1 for @author tags, in fact. They not useful for code maintenance (as > the body of the @authored block can change line by line – better use git > blame or git log to find out who the author was) nor for meritocracy > purposes, as no one will dig in so deep and we already have a Team page to > list participants. |
In reply to this post by Raul Kripalani
+1 on -1 for @author tag. It's a remnant of the long distant past...
-- Nikita Ivanov On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote: > I never use @author tags in other projects – but it was a requirement in > Ignite's Coding Style, that's why I added it to the example. > > I'm -1 for @author tags, in fact. They not useful for code maintenance (as > the body of the @authored block can change line by line – better use git > blame or git log to find out who the author was) nor for meritocracy > purposes, as no one will dig in so deep and we already have a Team page to > list participants. > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |