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

alexander stepanov alexander.v.stepanov at oracle.com
Thu Apr 16 14:07:02 UTC 2015

I'm sorry, two extra files touched -

Hopefully that's all for this bug...


On 16.04.2015 15:48, alexander stepanov wrote:
> Please note also that a couple of new files were touched:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html> 
> 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