RFR  8077332: tidy warnings from javax/xml
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Mon Apr 13 11:42:50 UTC 2015
On 13/04/2015 12:22, alexander stepanov wrote:
> Hello Joe,
> Thank you for the notes;
> > Copyright year shall not be changed.
> That seems to be a bit controversial point; sometimes (while cleaning
> docs) I was asked to do that, other times - not to do that. Our
> internal policy seemingly assigns to change the 2nd date every time
> the sources were touched (but that may be a question of ambiguous
> But of course I can easily revert these changes if you're totally sure
> it should be done.
This has always been confusing. Some areas insist on updating the
copyright dates, others don't. AFAIK, it has always been optional. I
think the original assumption was that the update_copyright_year script
(in the top-level repo) be run periodically to do bulk updates.
Unfortunately that script doesn't seem to be run very often now and this
strengthens the case to update the dates on a continuous basis. I have
not come across the argument that html tidy tasks that don't change the
javadoc should not update the copyright date. The general topic probably
should move to jdk9-dev and get this decided once and documented in the
More information about the core-libs-dev