RFR [9] 8077332: tidy warnings from javax/xml

Alan Bateman 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 
> interpretation).
> 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 
developer guide.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list