Conversation
Godin
force-pushed
the
update_license_version
branch
4 times, most recently
from
9cfa437 to
0510977
Compare
| private static Object test() throws Exception { | ||
| nop(); // assertFullyCovered() | ||
|
|
||
| try ( // assertTry() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Change of header revealed following strange behavior of ECJ 3.12.1 that we currently use in tests:
compilation of
/* comment with 20 lines */
import java.io.Closeable;
class Example {
private static class Resource implements Closeable {
@Override
public void close() {
}
}
private static void nop() {
}
private static void example() throws Exception {
nop();
try( // line 35
Resource r1 = new Resource();
Closeable r2 = new Resource();
AutoCloseable r3 = new Resource();
) {
nop();
}
}
}
results in bytecode with following LineNumberTable:
line 34: 0
line 36: 7
line 37: 16
line 3: 25
line 40: 35
line 41: 38
line 42: 176
however if first comment contains one less/more lines than 20, i.e. try keyword is not on line 35, then LineNumberTable is different - for example when method starts at line 35:
line 35: 0
line 36: 3
line 37: 7
line 38: 16
line 39: 25
line 41: 35
line 42: 38
line 43: 176
notice absence of entry for offset 3 in the first case 🙃and presence of entry for line number 3 🙀
|
@Godin I hope our former contributors are o.k. with removing their names from source files. Do you know of a reasoning behind the removal at eclipse.org? |
|
@marchof AFAIK this "field" was always optional - here is the the oldest entry of Eclipse Project Handbook I can find: http://web.archive.org/web/20151106184324/https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/ Projects are not forced to keep/remove it. However AFAIK it was well maintained only a long-long time ago, let's say in pre-Git history, and nowadays usually not maintained properly, i.e. not updated over time. I have feeling that the same in our case - value is only correct at a time of file creation, important and big file updates don't result in update of this field, and so that its current value is simply outdated in many cases. I propose removal because of this, and because all authors of all changes are anyway already properly recorded by Git, and also we do already mention contributors in changelog - search by "contrib" in it. And this way in future we only will need to pay attention on mentioning contributions in changelog, instead of reviewing header of each individual file. |
|
Can also make analogy with archaic javadoc tag |
|
@Godin Ok, let's make things simple and remove contributors from individual source files. Git history and change log should be enough. With some grepping I come to the following contributors list in our sources: Out of which the following people are not mentioned in change log (beside us): I wonder whether we might create a separate contributors.html page. What about cleaning up contributors information in a separate PR? |
Godin
force-pushed
the
update_license_version
branch
from
0510977 to
fc65d94
Compare
@marchof fine 👍 I excluded remove_optional_field.patch.txt from this PR. BTW don't know how/where you found as contributor |
|
@Godin I should have excluded |
2 participants
After nice cleanup of information about licenses by #926 , #918 and #934, I propose to update Eclipse Public License from version 1.0 to version 2.0.
This requires
about.htmlfilesorg.jacoco.doc/docroot/doc/epl-v10.htmlthat contains text of licenseorg.jacoco.build/pom.xmlAt the same time I propose to also remove optional
Contributorsfield from headers.Changes are in separate commits to simplify review, but prior to merge should be squashed into single one.