> most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the codebase. I definitely use it extensively **inside the IDE**. But never as a compiled set of external docs.
Which is to say, I'm +1 on removing the target and I'd ask everyone to keep javadoccing your classes and methods where things are non-obvious or there's a logical coupling with something else in the system. :) On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Derek Chen-Becker wrote: > +1. If a need comes up for Javadoc we can fix it at that point, but I suspect > most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the codebase. > > Cheers, > > Derek > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:11 AM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't think even if it works anyone is going to use the output, so >> I'm good with removal. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Brandon >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:50 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova >> <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > We were looking into a user report around our ant javadoc task recently. >> > That made us realize it is not run in CI; it finishes successfully even if >> > there are hundreds of errors, some potentially breaking doc pages. >> > >> > There was a ticket discussion where a few community members mentioned that >> > this task was probably unnecessary. Can we remove it, or shall we fix it? >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Ekaterina > > > -- > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Derek Chen-Becker | > | GPG Key available at https://keybase.io/dchenbecker and | > | https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org | > | Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7 7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 6ACC | > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ >
