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

alexander stepanov alexander.v.stepanov at oracle.com
Thu Apr 16 12:48:19 UTC 2015

Please note also that a couple of new files were touched:


On 15.04.2015 19:12, alexander stepanov wrote:
> Hello Joe,
> The copyright changes were reverted.
> Please review the updated fix:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/
> ("<code></code>" replaced with "{@code}", removed unnecessary "</p>", 
> used "@literal" tag).
> Thanks,
> Alexander
> On 13.04.2015 21:19, huizhe wang wrote:
>> On 4/13/2015 4:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I think the key question to ask is: is this the code I can claim 
>> Copyright with? To me, format, code style, html tags and other minor 
>> changes, these are not code changes one can claim copyright with.
>> The date of a Copyright establishes how far back the claim is made. 
>> In case where the work is substantially revised, a new Copyright 
>> claim is established, which is what the 2nd year is about.
>> In this case, esp. for the JAXP API (e.g. javax.xml.datatype), I'd 
>> like to see the years maintained because those are the years the API 
>> was designed and modified. The "tidy warnings" change did not change 
>> the API.
>> -Joe
>>> -Alan

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list