So I suppose this means that we should create JavaDoc artifacts in the future:
2x +1 (Richard, Peter) 1x +0 (Marschall) No other votes ;) -- Richard On 30.08.2013, at 10:46, Peter Klügl <pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote: > On 29.08.2013 23:40, Marshall Schor wrote: >> We have our multi-module builds set up so that >> >> a) Javadocs are run just for the publicly-viewable apis >> b) not run for individual sub-modules (e.g., not for uimaj-core). >> >> Many releases ago, we did not even publish modules (other than maven >> plugins) to >> maven-central - we just did binary convenience builds, and source releases, >> published to the Apache Mirroring system. >> >> Gradually, (as of uimaj release 2.3.1) we conformed more to the Maven normal >> conventions, and we started making our individual projects available on maven >> central, although without javadocs. >> >> We could "turn on" javadoc creation for individual modules (probably only >> under >> the -Papache-release profile, to make development builds go faster). I think >> these would (by default - need to investigate) be "full" javadocs. >> >> Richard suggests we do this, I'm +0 on this (not convinced that the Javadocs >> are >> of actual interest to anyone, and they take up space -- but I guess that's >> old-fashioned thinking :-)). >> >> Other opinions? > > +1 > > (not that ruta has javadocs yet) > > Peter > >> >> -Marshall
