I've reverted the trunk to pre-MCHECKSTYLE-105. I'll review this patch according to the issues detected in a dedicated java5 branch. Should I set version to "3.0" in this branch to show the breaking change with 2.x versions due to java5 requirement ?
Nicolas 2009/5/30 nicolas de loof <nico...@apache.org> > Sory, I missed time to follow this thread, thanks to benjamin for the ping. > I applied MCHECKSTYLE-105 patch as is and did not detect the breacking > changes, it can be rollbacked - I will check MCHECKSTYLE-101later. > > Following the thread about plugin and Java5 I've created a branch for > checkstyle plugin : > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/branches/maven-checkstyle-plugin-java1.4/ > > This branch at revision just prior this commit, so we can just switch this > branch with trunk to get a clean rollback. I could the create a java5 branch > and apply MCHECKSTYLE-105 without the breacking changes to codestyle rules > you noticed. > > Nicolas > > > 2009/5/30 Benjamin Bentmann <benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu> > > Hi Nicolas, >> >> just a ping in case the former mails didn't make it through. >> >> >> Benjamin >> >> >> >> Benjamin Bentmann wrote: >> >>> Dennis Lundberg wrote: >>> >>> it yet myself), you have changed the configuration for >>>> HtmlPackage/JavadocPackage compared to how it used to work. IIUC >>>> package.html files are no longer allowed in the configurations for >>>> Avalon, Maven and Turbine. If we want to change that it's better to open >>>> a separate issue for that, and commit that separately. I don't think we >>>> should change the behavior, so I am -1 to the change in configuration. >>>> >>> >>> Considering the brekaing effects on existing projects as pointed out by >>> Dennis, Paul, Mark and the existing ITs, I agree with Dennis to revert this >>> particular part of the commit. The requirement for per-package javadoc seems >>> not to meet consensus in our community so the maven_checks.xml does not >>> represent community style. >>> >>> Nicolas, can you comment on this topic please? Among others, there's also >>> a question from Dennis about removal of the ASF license header unanswered as >>> far as I see. >>> >>> >>> Benjamin >>> >> >
