At the moment the process is that:
- Java source has the license statement, mergefile has not (but its only in
proposal)
- XDoclet extracts infos from sourcefile, but not the copyright statement
(only in normal comment block, not in javadoc comment)
? something (XDoclet, Velocity? havent found the source) merges both files
- Velocity generates the HTML
xdoclet merges something, then velocity does the xform.
And the copyright statement is hardcoded in the DVSL script:
proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0126: <!-- PAGE FOOTER --> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0127: <tr> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0128: <td> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0129: <div align="center"><font color="$body-link" size="-1"><em> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0130: Copyright © 2000-2003, Apache Software Foundation proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0131: </em></font></div> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0132: </td> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0133: </tr>
I agree with having the copyright years in both of them, because - if the manual generation will be the official way - the mergefiles are part of the src-distro and therefor under ASF license. So we have to merge these two statements into one statement for generated html page. java:2000-2003 + merge:2004 = html:2000-2004 java:2000,2002-2003+merge:2003 = html:2000,2002-2003 ... would be a peace to think about ...
the whole doc thing is a bit of a mess, and something we should do something about. I think automation is the right way to go, but we dont have a complete or clean process right now,
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
