Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Brad Wetmore]

Mark Reinhold wrote:

>> Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>> I disagree with you about where reviewers should be acknowledged.
>>>
>>> Reviewing code is tantamount to authorship.  From one of our internal
>>> guideline documents (which is already in the process of being cleaned
>>> up for external use):

Absolutely.  When anything breaks, as gatekeeper I head directly to 
*BOTH* author and reviewer(s).  IMHO, if a fix has approval, the 
reviewers have implicitly stated they understood and agreed with what 
they were reviewing.

>> That's fine. And the names of the reviewers should be stored in the bug
>> database, along with all the other information about the fix. Do you agree
>> with that?
> 
> No.  Authorship information should go with the code.

Agreed.  As a someone who occasionally has to put on the "archeologist" 
hat, this information needs to be readily available, and the changeset 
comment is the ideal place for it.  Plus the push hooks can prevalidate 
the contents of the comment.

I don't want to load/navigate through different tools only to find out 
the reviewer information was never captured.  There are no checks with 
the current bug tracking/codereview mechanism.  Yes, that could change 
"down the road" with the automated codereview tool being discussed in 
another thread, but that's still an extra step/server I have to go 
through, and requires that I be online.

Brad