elharo commented on code in PR #2023:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/2023#discussion_r1904121532
##########
api/maven-api-model/src/main/mdo/maven.mdo:
##########
@@ -104,9 +104,9 @@
<field xdoc.separator="blank">
<name>parent</name>
<version>4.0.0+</version>
- <description>The location of the parent project, if one exists.
Values from the parent
+ <description>Returns the coordinates of the parent project, if one
exists. Values from the parent
Review Comment:
Bleah. If i had my druthers, we wouldn't generate any of this. If we're
going to use Modello to generate Javadocs, then we need to get the docs right.
For the field, we can drop it. It's private and doesn't need Javadoc. Do we
have setters? We likely shouldn't.
I am surprised to hear that "the javadoc is not generated anymore when
generating the Maven 3 model." If so, where did it come from? I noticed this
problem when looking at the generated code.
##########
api/maven-api-model/src/main/mdo/maven.mdo:
##########
@@ -121,34 +121,39 @@
<version>3.0.0+</version>
<required>true</required>
<description>
- A universally unique identifier for a project. It is normal to
+ Returns a string that defines a collection of related projects. It
is recommended to
use a fully-qualified package name to distinguish it from other
- projects with a similar name (eg. {@code org.apache.maven}).
+ projects with a similar name (for example, {@code
org.apache.maven}).
+ This form is now required to create a new group ID in Maven
Central.
+ However, older projects did not always follow this convention,
+ and often use a single word such as jaxen or jdom as the group ID.
</description>
<type>String</type>
</field>
<field>
<name>artifactId</name>
<version>3.0.0+</version>
<required>true</required>
- <description>The identifier for this artifact that is unique within
the group given by the
+ <description>Returns a string that defines a collection of versions
within the group given by the
Review Comment:
Yes, this is tricky. There might be a better way of putting this. Note that
I am not saying here that a groupId:artifactId *is* a collection of versions
but that it *defines* a collection of versions. Perhaps I could change it to
*identifies* a collection of versions. I could also make a case for
*delineates* a collection of versions, though that word is a little obscure for
technical writing.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
