Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

Oh cool. Glad to hear it's not a Groovydoc bug. I created GROOVY-7525 to add the additional package.html files. While I was examining the code to create the Jira, I noticed that in the main code - org.codehaus.groovy.antlr.parser is an empt

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

That's what the CI server does for JDK 9. We still have to keep them because we build for multiple JDK versions. 2015-07-24 16:40 GMT+02:00 Pascal Schumacher : > I can run the build locally with gradle 2.5 (2.4 and before do not support > JDK9), if I remove the no longer supported JVM args like "M

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

I can run the build locally with gradle 2.5 (2.4 and before do not support JDK9), if I remove the no longer supported JVM args like "MaxPermSize" from gradle.properties Am 24.07.2015 um 14:47 schrieb Russel Winder: On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 05:59 +0200, Pascal Schumacher wrote: Hello, does anybo

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

Jochen fixed the "simpleName" issue with: https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/commit/d61f359f2cf67b8317f9e80cc62801f736ead48b I took a look at http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8008577 and related issues and it seems like the date changes are intentional, so I changed

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

Just checked, it doesn't fail. The failures we've seen before are from the date changes that the JDK made also. And I think it's also a JDK 9 bug. 2015-07-24 15:04 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou : > Am 24.07.2015 14:55, schrieb Cédric Champeau: >> >> The JDK9 build on the CI server uses a weekly build

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

Am 24.07.2015 14:55, schrieb Cédric Champeau: The JDK9 build on the CI server uses a weekly build of JDK9. It used to compile, it doesn't now, and the error tells me it's a JDK bug (an error from our side wouldn't fail like this). However, as far as I know, we didn't fix the "simpleName" test fo

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

The JDK9 build on the CI server uses a weekly build of JDK9. It used to compile, it doesn't now, and the error tells me it's a JDK bug (an error from our side wouldn't fail like this). However, as far as I know, we didn't fix the "simpleName" test for closures that fails under JDK9, did we? 2015-

Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

Am 24.07.2015 14:23, schrieb Paul King: [...] If you replace latest with next in the url, you'll see the same problem isn't there. We had briefly the header comment accidentally having /** at the beginning instead of /*. but should that really matter? They are not in the right place to count a

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 05:59 +0200, Pascal Schumacher wrote: > Hello, > > does anybody know why the JDK9 build on the build server fails? I have only ever managed to get "gradle clean" to work with JDK9, for all other Gradle builds of anything (not just Groovy) I have to use JDK8. -- Russel. ===

Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

On 24/07/2015 10:21 AM, Keegan Witt wrote: I noticed when looking at a package summary, all I can see is "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." as the description for every class. For example, see here: http://docs.groovy-lang.org/

Re: JDK9 build failures on the build server

Am 24.07.2015 06:06, schrieb Keegan Witt: Dunno, but further up it has [:groovy-groovysh:test] *** Error in `/opt/jdk9-build/j2sdk-image/bin/java': double free or corruption (fasttop): 0x7f38ec3d07a0 *** Did you see that? looks like a JDK bug, or not? bye blackdrag -- Jochen "blackdrag"

Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

Am 24.07.2015 02:21, schrieb Keegan Witt: I noticed when looking at a package summary, all I can see is "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements." as the description for every class. For example, see here: http://docs.groovy-lang.org/late

Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

We didn't discuss improving specifically this, but we are in general in an effort to improve our documentation, be it the new asciidoc thing, javadocs or package descriptors. So I would say, go for it. 2015-07-24 2:21 GMT+02:00 Keegan Witt : > I noticed when looking at a package summary, all I can