<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 07:04, "Martin v. Löwis" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> I see that Guido is not keen on the idea, and I'm not sure my<br>
> observations help sway things one way or the other. OTOH, it would be<br>
> nice if at least we always add our own identifier (initials, nick, email<br>
> address) and a date to the XXX so we at least know who was talking about<br>
> what.<br>
<br>
</div>I find it fairly easy to use "svn annotate" to learn about the source<br>
of an XXX comment. In many cases, the XXX comment is fairly obvious,<br>
anyway, so knowing who added it, and when, doesn't provide much useful<br>
information.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Ah, but that's not true in Subversion: you just see who committed the XXX comment, not who wrote it :-) I've been using the XXX(twouters) approach for a while and it's pretty convenient because who wrote the comment changes how you interpret the comment. See for instance r42313 and r42717 of Python/ceval.c: if I'd known the original comment was added by Jeremy, I would have interpreted the question correctly the first time around. (As it was, Jeremy came up to me at PyCon, I think :)<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!<br>