[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8733?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16799218#comment-16799218
]
Jason Gerlowski commented on LUCENE-8733:
-----------------------------------------
bq. I don't really like having them on internal classes though, they're an
implementation detail, and users of intervals shouldn't need to know about them
at all.
True, but if the package-private Javadocs aren't published, is this really a
concern? If these internal Javadocs are only exposed to those browsing in an
IDE, users are only going to stumble across them if they've already decided
they want (or need) to look at Lucene's internals. They're going to see the
internals with or without the @since.
Am I missing something here? I don't see anything wrong with adding the tags
if it makes lives easier for some developers, but maybe I just don't understand
the argument against...
> retrospectively add @since javadocs for 'intervals' classes
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8733
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8733
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: Christine Poerschke
> Assignee: Christine Poerschke
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-8733-branch-7-4.patch
>
>
> LUCENE-8196 started 'intervals' and subsequent tickets extended it.
> This ticket proposes to retrospectively add {{@since X.Y}} javadocs for all
> the classes (and to then going forward perhaps continue to add them).
> And perhaps we could have an 'intervals' or similar JIRA components choice
> too?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
