lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christian Moen (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3887) 'ant javadocs' should fail if a package is missing a package.html
Date Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:41:39 GMT


Christian Moen commented on LUCENE-3887:


I should be careful recommending things I haven't tried, but perhaps Checkstyle (
could be useful for this.  The javadoc package check described on
seems to cover this sort of style check.

Checkstyle also integrates with build tools so it's also possible to do some light style checking
as part of the build -- either optional or integrated longer term, if we'd like that.  (I'm
sure there are various opinions on wether this is a good idea.)
> 'ant javadocs' should fail if a package is missing a package.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3887
>                 URL:
>             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:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message