On 29 December 2010 16:16, Miguel Cobá <miguel.coba@gmail.com> wrote:
El mié, 29-12-2010 a las 11:01 +0000, Douglas Brebner escribió:
On 29/12/2010 10:14, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Entries like: ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' stamp: 'zz (auto pragmas 12/08) 3/2/2004 07:58'
should look like:
ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' author: 'zz' comment: 'auto pragmas 12/08' timestamp:'3/2/2004 07:58'
Just out of curiosity is that date the third of February or the second of March 2004? ;)
Or 07:58 in Paris time or California Time.
That is not a good format. Even worse is trying to use the timestamps strings like a bad source code management. It was from a time when there were no SCM solutions for Squeak and they served their purpose. But now, the are obsolete. I think that they should have only *last* username (not initials, that is lame, too many collisions, not thinking about future users, imagine Linux kernel contributors using initials!), time stamp in UTC with timezone and not even free text. The core image that is not persisted in monticello can rely on timestamps to see who last edited some method, but the method internal comments are the place to point the comments, not the timestamps. For all the other code that have monticello packages, it is forbiden  to even use the method timestamp to store something that seems like a comment.
The comments are for the SCM or for the method comments, not for the method timestamps.
if you would ask me, i'm also not in favor of having comments there.. but then what is this '(auto pragmas 12/08)' then, if not comment? Definitely its not an author's initials :)
Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.