MinecraftForge
Change Mod to require a name.
I agree with this. When you're first changing it, maybe require a version too?
Some people don't do this because their modid is the exact same thing as what their name would be. Now, I'm not saying it's ok, but I can understand why people wouldn't put a name. Also, this would break the debug mods in Forge testing.
I'm against forcing a version number, as my mods load the version of the mod based on a file that gets generated during build. (Because there is no easy way to add the version to the annotation and get it replaced when building)
Uhh...in the minecraft block in your buildscript, there's a replace thing. replace "@MOD_VERSION@", project.version
Works just fine,
I don't agree with forcing the version in the @Mod. I personally let FML use the version.properties file to get the version, and leave the @Mod version out. This is arguably a better method than doing version replacing on source files.
The intended method is for the the version to be valid in the @Mod so that we can pragmatically grab the data without having to actually run any code. So it may be worth it to force this information, but i'd like to see code wise people's usecases.
I concur with Lex; this is the only use case I need. The more streamlined the accessing of a version attribute is, the less likely for confusion with "alternate" mod versioning practices.
I always have a name for my mods anyway, I just stated why people don't have names. As for the version, in dev, my version is always @MOD_VERSION@, and it gets replaced with FG, as I described above. I agree that forcing this stuff may be useful in some cases.
From a bit of research some mods aren't specifying the version. IronChest CompactSolars Then again some are. Applied Energistics Tinkers Construct
The first two aren't because cpw always used a version.properties file (which, according to the log, is the first fallback when one isn't specified in the annotation)