lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christian Moen (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3887) 'ant javadocs' should fail if a package is missing a package.html
Date Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:00:39 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3887?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13234046#comment-13234046
] 

Christian Moen commented on LUCENE-3887:
----------------------------------------

Robert, very good point regarding the license.  Thanks.

I believe it should be possible for us to run this as part of nightly builds somehow.  If
we do light checking only and expect few problems with code changes in general, I think this
sort of scheme might work just fine.

Even if it turned out to be possible to include Checkstyle as a build-time dependency only
by never including it in any binary or source distributions, I don't think doing so would
be very wise.

Having said this, if we use Checkstyle as part of the nightly builds, there's soon a need
to have it available for local builds as well, as Jan points out.

Perhaps running these checks could be an optional target for developers that they can do with
their self-supplied Checkstyle jar?  For example, it someone runs {{ant checkstyle}}, we'll
tell them that Checkstyle isn't included for license reasons and quickly explain the few steps
necessary to get checking going.

Personally, I think introducing more style checking in Lucene/Solr would be a good thing.

                
> 'ant javadocs' should fail if a package is missing a package.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3887
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3887
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: general/build
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>
> While reviewing the javadocs I noticed many packages are missing a basic package.html.
> For 3.x I committed some package.html files where they were missing (I will port forward
to trunk).
> I think all packages should have this... really all public/protected classes/methods/constants,
> but this would be a good step.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

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


Mime
View raw message