On 4/12/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Zaun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Myrna van Lunteren wrote: > >> Now that there is a plan for a new release candidate, I think maybe > >> the javadoc should be fixed? > >> There are the following errors: > >> > >> [javadoc] > >> C:\svn\10.4\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\jdbc\DRDAServerStarter.java:107: > >> warning - @param argument "address" is not a parameter name. > >> [javadoc] > >> C:\svn\10.4\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\jdbc\DRDAServerStarter.java:107: > >> warning - Tag @see: reference not found: NetworkServerControl > > ... > >> [javadoc] > >> C:\svn\10.4\java\engine\org\apache\derby\authentication\SystemPrincipal.java:47: > >> warning - Tag @see: can't find name in java.security.Principal > > > > I noticed that at least these three javadoc issues have been fixed > > already in the trunk by Mike: > > 636875 mikem > > > > Guess it's best for a committer to propagate these javadoc fixes > > to the 10.4 branch. > > I have merged this and two other javadoc fixes to 10.4: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r647468 | dyre | 2008-04-12 18:35:24 +0200 (Sat, 12 Apr 2008) | 4 lines > > Javadoc fixes (no jira). > Merged to 10.4 with svn merge -r 636874:636875 ../derby-scratch > No conflicts. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r647470 | dyre | 2008-04-12 18:50:16 +0200 (Sat, 12 Apr 2008) | 4 lines > > Javadoc fixes (no jira). > Merged to 10.4 with svn merge -r 637199:637200 ../derby-scratch > No conflicts. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r647472 | dyre | 2008-04-12 19:02:25 +0200 (Sat, 12 Apr 2008) | 4 lines > > Javadoc fixes (no jira). > Merged to 10.4 with svn merge -r 639014:639015 ../derby-scratch > No conflicts. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There are still 7 javadoc warnings left on the 10.4 branch AFAICT, but > none on trunk. Not quite sure what to do about those. I guess we could > fix the javadoc only on the branch, but that could lead to conficts if > the checkins that fixed them on trunk are later merged to the branch... > > -- > dt > Thanks for doing those merges, Dyre! I hunted around and I think the final 7 were fixed on trunk by mike with revision 636114; I looked at the diffs and they looked innocent but fixed the javadoc. I just merged that to 10.4 without any problems and committed with revision 647502.
Myrna
