Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-25 Thread Paul King
On 24/07/2015 10:56 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: 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 ma

Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-25 Thread Paul King
On 25/07/2015 3:21 AM, Keegan Witt wrote: While I was examining the code to create the Jira, I noticed that in the main code * org.codehaus.groovy.antlr.parser is an empty package, can we delete it? That sits in target/generated-sources/src/main these days. It should be fine to delete. In

Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-24 Thread Keegan Witt
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: Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-24 Thread Jochen Theodorou
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: Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-24 Thread Paul King
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: Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-24 Thread Jochen Theodorou
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

2015-07-24 Thread Cédric Champeau
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

Package Groovydoc not helpful

2015-07-23 Thread 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/latest/html/gapi/groovy/lang/package-summary.htm