RE: javadocs

2002-07-31 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 19:01, Victor Mote wrote: My goal here is to use the javadocs as an educational tool for getting up to speed on FOP. As I went along, I thought I would add javadoc comments as I learned something useful that was not already documented. I realize that some (perhaps much

RE: javadocs

2002-07-31 Thread Victor Mote
I think my submission complied with http://xml.apache.org/fop/involved.html, but I did not follow the link to http://xml.apache.org/source.html#, and I see now that my submission was deficient in two ways: 1) not adding the [PATCH] header, and 2) not using diff -u. Should I resubmit the patch

RE: javadocs

2002-07-31 Thread Keiron Liddle
Hi Victor, Usually it is a good idea to follow those guidelines. I hope you didn't get the idea that I was ignoring the patch. It is just that it is for the branch and it can be a pain to get things set up. Hopefully another committer with the branch can give a look at it. On Wed, 2002-07-31

RE: javadocs

2002-07-31 Thread Victor Mote
Keiron Liddle wrote: I hope you didn't get the idea that I was ignoring the patch. It is just that it is for the branch and it can be a pain to get things set up. Hopefully another committer with the branch can give a look at it. No, I wasn't worried about that -- I just wanted to make

RE: javadocs

2002-07-30 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 04:28, Victor Mote wrote: FOP Committers: The underlying problem was that lib/bin/antRun had DOS line endings in it (I am running on Linux 6.1), causing it to fail when used by javadoc from within Ant. This cannot be fixed from within the build.xml file using fixcrlf

RE: javadocs

2002-07-30 Thread Victor Mote
Keiron Liddle wrote: Are you generating the javadocs from the distribution? The problem sounds like a packaging issue. Those files have the line endings for the OS they are checked out on. As far as I know javadocs has always worked from cvs. I was generating the javadocs from cvs. However,