The question I have is: why do we need javadocs for the example code? This makes no sense to me!
Uwe Robert Muir <[email protected]> schrieb: >On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's not that there were failures, but that you moved some tests >under >> demo/ that should belong under facet/. That's the dependency I'm >talking >> about. I tried to resolve it, but it wasn't trivial -- either these >tests >> will depend on demo/, or we rewrite them to use their own data, which >will >> take some time. >> > >Right, its wrong for these tests to be moved, and thats why i said >"there >is more work to do here". >These tests should be rewritten to be "unit tests", with a clean >separation >of the tests that test the example. > >Currently its all messy and disorganized. I just didn't have the time >to >clean this up (it was around release time, I was annoyed at the >situation, >and took a half-hearted stab at fixing it just in case it was something >I >could fix in an hour). > > >> >> It's not really a hack, it worked like that ever since 3.4, only >recently >> removed. If you want, let's mark 3998 as a blocker for 4.1, but for >now, >> this is what I'd like to fix: >> > >I don't really want to add hacks here, because who knows what else is >broken/will break with packaging. For example, what will the maven >-javadocs.jar look like? Is it correct? I have no idea. > >Thats why I say I think we should just do the work to fix this >correctly. >I don't like adding a special case situation with these examples that >will >only cause pain in the future. > >There is a lot of work to be done with these examples until we release >javadocs for them. I don't see any package.htmls, some classes have no >description, etc. -- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de
