Yeah.. that works.. even if I still had it regularly it would still work. Compiled with the following (at the end of this message) and it worked.
I think we should either kill the package-info.java packages, or fill them properly with information. I will raise a JIRA so we won't forget this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-129 /** * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at * * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and * limitations under the License. */ /** * This is just a test */ On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Mesnil <[email protected]> wrote: > why don't you simply use simple comment (/* */) instead of Javadoc > comments (/** */) for the license headers? > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Clebert Suconic > <[email protected]> wrote: >> We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead >> of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this >> is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a >> package-info.java >> >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html >> >> >> The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the >> package. >> >> >> >> Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead >> have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that >> way the javadoc would translate better. >> >> >> Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license >> header and still a meaninful doc about the package? >> >> >> Thanks > > > > -- > Jeff Mesnil > [email protected] > http://jmesnil.net/weblog/ -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
