Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

javadoc @version %I%, %G% tag

655 views
Skip to first unread message

hugo

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 11:21:59 PM7/4/01
to
Hi

I am afraid I am still having problems with javadoc tags. When I put

* @version %I%, %G%
or
* @version "%I%, %G%"

and I use javadoc -version MyJavaFile.java

the html file (MyJavaFile.html) has version information which comes out
literally as above, i.e I have:

Version:
"%I%, %G%"

in my html file, rather than something like this:

Version
1.39, 05/07/2001

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks

Hugo

--
Dr Hugo Bouckaert
R&D Support Engineer, Fractal Graphics
39 Fairway, Nedlands Western Australia 6009
Tel: +618 9386 7917
Email:hu...@fractalgraphics.com.au
Web: http://www.fractalgraphics.com.au

Chris Smith

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 1:00:11 AM7/5/01
to
"hugo" <hu...@fractalgraphics.com.au> wrote ...

> I am afraid I am still having problems with javadoc tags. When I put
>
> * @version %I%, %G%
> or
> * @version "%I%, %G%"
>
> and I use javadoc -version MyJavaFile.java
>
> the html file (MyJavaFile.html) has version information which comes out
> literally as above, i.e I have:
>
> Version:
> "%I%, %G%"
>
> in my html file, rather than something like this:
>
> Version
> 1.39, 05/07/2001


What makes you expect to get the real version and date in the first place?
Where do you keep versioning information at all?

Chris Smith


R@nsh!

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 5:15:01 AM7/5/01
to
This is from a demo at Sun's site.
I tried this myself - no luck.
Maybe it got something to do with the fact their developing on unix??


Christoph Dahlen

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 6:51:19 AM7/5/01
to
"hugo" <hu...@fractalgraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:3B43DD57...@fractalgraphics.com.au...

> Hi
>
> I am afraid I am still having problems with javadoc tags. When I put
>
> * @version %I%, %G%
> or
> * @version "%I%, %G%"

Those patterns you use are not from javadoc. I guess their are supported
from some sort of development environment like JBuilder.

The -version flag simply instructs javadoc to integrate the version tag into
the output, but it does not track any kind of versioning information.

To get real source code managing, i suggest using CVS
(http://www.cvshome.org), an open source, multi-plattform concurrent
versioning system. You could then change your version tag to something like
this:

@version $Id$, which gives you for example

$Id: MyClass.java,v 1.1 2001/07/05 09:47:06 chdahlen Exp $

or @version $Revision$, which give you something like this:

$Revision: 1.1 $

CVS offers a lot of other patterns, you can even include the whole version
log into the source. And yes - for those Windows users - there is also a
graphical client named WinCVS.

--

Christoph Dahlen
http://www.dahlen.org/


Mike Tietel

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 10:22:25 AM7/5/01
to
In article <9i1gsr$g49u2$1...@ID-89963.news.dfncis.de>,

"Christoph Dahlen" <chri...@dahlen.org> writes:
> "hugo" <hu...@fractalgraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3B43DD57...@fractalgraphics.com.au...
> > Hi
> >
> > I am afraid I am still having problems with javadoc tags. When I put
> >
> > * @version %I%, %G%
> > or
> > * @version "%I%, %G%"
>
> Those patterns you use are not from javadoc. I guess their are supported
> from some sort of development environment like JBuilder.
>

Those are SCCS keywords.

%G% - Date delta/revision was applied
%I% - Delta/revision ID (a.b.c.d)

--
mjt

0 new messages