I'd have to agree with allowing minor/simple javadoc updates also where
specification changes are not implied. Even though Oracle mightn't
always update their javadocs it shouldn't stop others from doing so
(again for minor/simple/typo updates)
I've run into arguments in past tough around what sort of javadoc
updates do and do not imply spec. changes. Let's check with conformance
team before deciding if this change is ok for an update release.
Regards,
Sean.
On 18/09/2012 15:51, Andrew Hughes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 16/09/2012 1:26 AM, Phil Race wrote:
On 9/15/12 3:46 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Phil,
On 15/09/2012 2:57 AM, Phil Race wrote:
I really don't think its appropriate to push javadoc changes into
an
update release without
a really, really compelling reason that I don't see here.
That is certainly true if they represent a specification change,
but
there is no semantic change here this is a simple clarification.
That would just rule it out completely. But we don't even
regenerate
javadoc for
the update releases and we have never randomly backported doc
comments, for
no obvious reason. So my reasoning and position stands.
This is OpenJDK, it doesn't matter if "we" don't regenerate javadoc
for
update releases. And I have long thought that "we" should! I
understand
the issue with spec changes in update releases but I never understood
a
policy that would allow errors, misconceptions and mis-guidance to be
set in stone instead of correcting them for the benefit of the user
community.
+1
GNU/Linux distributions will make use of this new documentation in new builds,
even if the copies on the Oracle website aren't updated. The fact that you
don't
want to jump through whatever hoops are needed to update your own copies should
not
stop people from making minor updates (clarifications, typo fixes) at the
OpenJDK level.
I don't know how often jdk7u builds with docs are done at Oracle but there are
currently
a number of warnings being thrown out by the build:
../../src/share/classes/java/awt/color/ICC_Profile.java:1069: warning - Tag @see: missing
'#': "activateDeferredProfile()"
../../src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandle.java:392: warning - Tag
@link: reference not found: Objects.equals java.util.Objects#equals
../../src/share/classes/java/util/Calendar.java:1717: warning - Tag @see: can't
find setInternallySetState(int) in java.util.Calendar
../../src/share/classes/java/util/Currency.java:685: warning - @throws tag has
no arguments.
../../src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/nimbus/NimbusStyle.java:854: warning -
@return tag has no arguments.
../../src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/nimbus/NimbusStyle.java:926: warning -
@return tag has no arguments.
/home/andrew/builder/icedtea-jdk7/impsrc/javax/xml/bind/JAXBContext.java:262: warning - Tag
@see: reference not found: S 7.4.1 "Named Packages" in Java Language
Specification</a>
7 warnings
Are we supposed to retain these too? I can probably provide webrevs to fix
these, but there's
no point if they aren't going to be accepted.
David
-phil.
David
------
A reminder: Update releases aren't a free-for-all. You need to
exercise
judgement in what
has to go in and what is the case for it. We are up to 7u10 now.
We need
to be dialling
back the rate of change and focusing on JDK 8.
-phil.
On 9/14/2012 12:56 AM, Shi Jun Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to request for approval to push the following change
into
7u10.
Changeset in jdk8
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/237e27c7ddc3
Webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zhangshj/jdk7u/7166055/webrev.00/
Reviewed by dholmes, mduigou
Review thread
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-May/010322.html
