Hello Joe,
The copyright changes were reverted.
Please review the updated fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/
("<code></code>" replaced with "{@code}", removed unnecessary "</p>",
used "@literal" tag).
Thanks,
Alexander
On 13.04.2015 21:19, huizhe wang wrote:
On 4/13/2015 4:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/04/2015 12:22, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello Joe,
Thank you for the notes;
> Copyright year shall not be changed.
That seems to be a bit controversial point; sometimes (while
cleaning docs) I was asked to do that, other times - not to do that.
Our internal policy seemingly assigns to change the 2nd date every
time the sources were touched (but that may be a question of
ambiguous interpretation).
But of course I can easily revert these changes if you're totally
sure it should be done.
This has always been confusing. Some areas insist on updating the
copyright dates, others don't. AFAIK, it has always been optional. I
think the original assumption was that the update_copyright_year
script (in the top-level repo) be run periodically to do bulk
updates. Unfortunately that script doesn't seem to be run very often
now and this strengthens the case to update the dates on a continuous
basis. I have not come across the argument that html tidy tasks that
don't change the javadoc should not update the copyright date. The
general topic probably should move to jdk9-dev and get this decided
once and documented in the developer guide.
I think the key question to ask is: is this the code I can claim
Copyright with? To me, format, code style, html tags and other minor
changes, these are not code changes one can claim copyright with.
The date of a Copyright establishes how far back the claim is made. In
case where the work is substantially revised, a new Copyright claim is
established, which is what the 2nd year is about.
In this case, esp. for the JAXP API (e.g. javax.xml.datatype), I'd
like to see the years maintained because those are the years the API
was designed and modified. The "tidy warnings" change did not change
the API.
-Joe
-Alan
