Bah, at some point, that will be the new normal for everyone. The best way to deal with this is to agree to build with Java 8 with compiler settings that generate java 6 byte codes which we already have.
If we all pitch in it won't take long. Personally I do everything in Java 7 and I am migrating to 8 project by project. Gary <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:09/21/2014 07:12 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: Javadoc with v8 doclet </div><div> </div>I was a bit shocked after reading the article. The requirements are very strict. If you ask me what would be a better use of my time: fix outstanding jiras or add new features or make javadoc conform to some standard, I think out of those three, javadoc would benefit our users least... (I don't object to writing new javadoc according to the stricter rules, it just seems like a bit of a waste of time to fix the old docs.) And if we can get the benefit of the nicer looking javadoc HTML without paying the price of spending our valuable time to reformat etc, I'd say go for it! On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: Nah, we should just fix our comments... Gary -------- Original message -------- From: Remko Popma Date:09/20/2014 23:11 (GMT-05:00) To: Developers List Log4J Subject: Javadoc with v8 doclet Matt has mentioned a few times that he wanted to use the Javadoc format produced by java 8, but the doclet is too strict. This blog post may have a solution for that: http://blog.joda.org/2014/02/turning-off-doclint-in-jdk-8-javadoc.html Sent from my iPhone --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
