On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote:
> (Remember: "fail on warning" is not a feature of javadoc, or the > <javadoc/> nat target -- it's something special we do in our build.xml. > It's sometihng that in general i think is a very good idea, and i don't > suggest we change it, but it's the reason why we shouldn't just say "it's > oracles problem" when javadoc spits out a warning because the URL is down) > While its true we do something special here to intentionally fail, I actually think its still not our bug, should be a feature of javadoc, and should be part of the ant target (they claim to strive for reproducable builds) If you don't fail on this warning, you don't actually have a reproducable build: your 'javadocs' target generates different output depending upon whether oracle's server is working correctly or not at the time you ran it. This is why I agree with your fix (versus adding a regular expression to ignore the warning in addition to Uwe's java 7 hack)... its just about whether it should be a blocker to release or not. Because chances are within the 72 hour vote period the link starts working again... if this happens will you rescind your -1? -- lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
