On 01/07/2014 03:15 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 06/01/2014 19:29, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
+1
-- Jon
I agree too but my point on this was that we have history of letting
javadoc warnings sneak in and if they are now fatal then we need to
make sure that they don't get to master.
-Alan.
Doing
On 6 Jan 2014, at 21:49, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Hold up there. You can't give the access modifiers in the javadoc -Xdoclint
> option. javadoc infers the modifiers from the other javadoc options, such as
> -private, -protected etc.
Sorry, my fault. So the changes would be as follows, or
On 06/01/2014 19:29, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
+1
-- Jon
I agree too but my point on this was that we have history of letting
javadoc warnings sneak in and if they are now fatal then we need to make
sure that they don't get to master.
-Alan.
Hold up there. You can't give the access modifiers in the javadoc
-Xdoclint option. javadoc infers the modifiers from the other javadoc
options, such as -private, -protected etc.
-- Jon
On 01/06/2014 12:55 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Sounds good to me ( I must remember to do doc builds befor
On 01/06/2014 12:55 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 5 Jan 2014, at 23:30, Joe Darcy wrote:
On 01/05/2014 02:36 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 31/12/2013 02:07, Joe Darcy wrote:
:
To be clear, the goal would be for "-Xdoclint:all/protected" to be used on all
bundles.
Is the goal also for these war
On 5 Jan 2014, at 23:30, Joe Darcy wrote:
> On 01/05/2014 02:36 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 31/12/2013 02:07, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>> :
>>>
>>> To be clear, the goal would be for "-Xdoclint:all/protected" to be used on
>>> all bundles.
>> Is the goal also for these warnings to be fatal? If so th
+1
-- Jon
On 01/05/2014 03:30 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Yes, I think such javadoc warnings should be fatal. Additionally, when
an engineer is making javadoc changes, I think running the docs build
should be part of the to-do list before a push.
-Joe
On 01/05/2014 02:36 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 31/12/2013 02:07, Joe Darcy wrote:
:
To be clear, the goal would be for "-Xdoclint:all/protected" to be
used on all bundles.
Is the goal also for these warnings to be fatal? If so then I just
wonder about the implications (we would need to ensure
On 31/12/2013 02:07, Joe Darcy wrote:
:
To be clear, the goal would be for "-Xdoclint:all/protected" to be
used on all bundles.
Is the goal also for these warnings to be fatal? If so then I just
wonder about the implications (we would need to ensure that the docs
build are built continuously
Hi Joe
On 12/31/13 01:24 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Makes sense to me. The changes look fine.
Looks good to me as well.
Tim
-Chris
On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:07, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
Starting in JDK 8, there have been efforts to clean up the doclint warnings and
errors, especially for typ
Makes sense to me. The changes look fine.
-Chris
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:07, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Starting in JDK 8, there have been efforts to clean up the doclint warnings
> and errors, especially for types going into the coredocs bundle. The core
> libraries are doclint clean a
Hello,
Starting in JDK 8, there have been efforts to clean up the doclint
warnings and errors, especially for types going into the coredocs
bundle. The core libraries are doclint clean and much progress has been
made on the client area. I'll soon have a patch out for review that will
clear al
12 matches
Mail list logo
