Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Andrew Haley]

Jim Graham writes:
 > Why not both?  Why does it have to be one *or* the other?  I really 
 > don't get that aspect of these discussions.
 > 
 > The somewhat vague argument that information in the changesets
 > could become stale is only mildly interesting.  For one thing, that
 > may happen - what? - once a year or so?  If it happens more than
 > that, then we need to examine our development documentation
 > processes.  Second, even if it happens, exactly what problem might
 > it cause that is so irreversible that the project will be
 > irreparably harmed?  Finally, it should be common knowledge that
 > the information that exists there should not be taken as the
 > authoritative answer, just a convenient copy of the authoritative
 > answer for purposes of browsing.
 > 
 > The vague idea that such duplication of information *might* be
 > wrong and that this error could somehow cause serious repercussions
 > has to be weighed against the value of the convenience of not
 > having to correlate several repositories of information just to
 > understand the changes that are occurring.  How exactly has this
 > fear of potentially inaccurate information taken over and pushed
 > out all other considerations?
 > 
 > It's not like the information included in either location is
 > somehow legally binding - it's all there just to help us get work
 > done...


Precisely.  As someone outside Sun, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Andrew.

-- 
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903