Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Robert Muir thinks we should stop supporting Sun/Oracle JDK 1.5
 on branch_3x
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Mj2c13Rr30NtpKSkT_yqh9=fURg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104150947240.12972@bester>
References: 
 <2D127F11DC79714E9B6A43AC9458147FA33CF949@suex07-mbx-03.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DA848AA.1040602@gmail.com>
 <2D127F11DC79714E9B6A43AC9458147FA33CF94B@suex07-mbx-03.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=Mj2c13Rr30NtpKSkT_yqh9=fURg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


: my code is 100% valid java 5. if this oracle bug bothers you so much,
: perhaps you should switch to ibm's j9.

The code may be valid, but the javadoc was not.

This entire thread just makes me fucking sad.

It would be nice if we could save our violent disagreements for things 
where the end result has a profound implication on the API, or the 
performance of the code under conflicting use cases, or the overal future 
of the project.

	but arguing this much over a fucking typo?

Even if everything everyone claimed in this thread was 100% accurate (and 
from what i can tell, much of it was not, and some people seem to have 
made claims w/o even looking at the error message let alone the code) then 
we'd *still* have been left with a situation where in the absolute worst 
possible case scenerio we could have resolved the problem (and fixed the 
build) by removing a fucking {@link} tag and just refering to a class by 
name. 

Even then, would this really have been worth arguing over?

-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org