Oh, I was under the impression that this was something that was going to
be used for the new and improved maven documentation.
By the way, epunzalan has made quite a lot of improvements to the plugin
since your first checkin.
--
Dennis Lundberg
John Casey wrote:
As far as I know, the docck plugin was just a prototype that I was
using to try to collect some basic information about the sate of
documentation in the plugins. I don't think much has happened to it
since then. I like all of your suggestions. It would be nice to
eventually go even further, and somehow get into diagnosng missing
docs inside the pages (since some pages might only be stubs).
Clearly, this plugin still has room for improvement! :-)
-j
On 6/26/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all
I've had a look at the docck plugin and I like what I see so far! A
couple of questions that popped up along the way:
There is a check to make sure there is an index.[apt|xml|...] file
present. Shouldn't a lengthy description in the pom be good enough?
If a parameter is missing a description, an error is reported stating
the mojo goal where the error occurred. As a developer I think it would
make more sense to report the class name, but that might not be
available.
In the check for the scm tag, an error is reported if *all* children are
missing. Shouldn't that be if *any* of the children are missing?
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
