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

[alexander stepanov]

I'm sorry, two extra files touched -
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MailcapCommandMap.java.udiff.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MimetypesFileTypeMap.java.udiff.html

Hopefully that's all for this bug...

Thanks,
Alexander

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
>>>
>>
>