Hi Alexander, These seem to be OK
Best Lance On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:07 AM, alexander stepanov <alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, two extra files touched - > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MailcapCommandMap.java.udiff.html > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MimetypesFileTypeMap.java.udiff.html > > Hopefully that's all for this bug... > > Thanks, > Alexander > > On 16.04.2015 15:48, alexander stepanov wrote: >> Please note also that a couple of new files were touched: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html >> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html> >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html >> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html> >> >> >> On 15.04.2015 19:12, alexander stepanov wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> > Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com
