Code review request for 4891262 "API spec, javax/accessibility: few invalid javadoc tags"

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>   
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>     
>>> 2009/12/10 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 2009/12/10 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> 2009/12/10 Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While doing a coredocs build, I noticed once again some javadoc
>>>>>>>> warnings
>>>>>>>> coming out of the javax.accessibility package and I decided to fix
>>>>>>>> them;
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> patch is below and the full webrev is at
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/4891262.0/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> Again, good to see these being fixed.  What do you think to the idea
>>>>>>> of backporting these fixes to OpenJDK6 for the next release (b19)?
>>>>>>> It's not a major issue, but would improve the documentation packages
>>>>>>> being installed by GNU/Linux distros.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Andrew, if you wish, you have my approval to apply the fix for 4891262
>>>>>> (just
>>>>>> pushed into JDK 7 TL) and also
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6909070 "Missing package statements in java.text.Bidi @see links"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to OpenJDK 6 build 18, the current build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Thanks.  I'll do that once I get the current timezone patch off my
>>>>> stack.  I suggest we leave a full blitz of such warnings until b19
>>>>> though, otherwise b18 has the potential to go on for ever :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Build 19 would be fine too, but at least for now there will be at most
>>>> one
>>>> or two more doc warnings patches from me in the near future :-)
>>>>
>>>> -Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Moving discussion to jdk6-dev as it concerns OpenJDK6 primarily.
>>>
>>> My hesitation was because I didn't think the baseline was as good for
>>> OpenJDK6 as OpenJDK7 because a number of earlier patches were never
>>> backported.
>>>
>>> I did a build and that is the case; there are a lot of javadoc
>>> warnings that are fixed in 7 and thus there are changesets to
>>> backport.
>>>
>>> The first fix is
>>>
>>> 6810915: Sun proprietary warnings in JDK build
>>> Reviewed-by: ohair
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/6810915/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> which cuts down significantly on the 1789 warnings currently produced
>>> by turning off the 'warning: sun.a\
>>> wt.SunHints is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future
>>> release; style warnings.
>>>
>>> Ok to push?
>>>
>>>       
>> Yes; approved to go back.
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>     
>
> Two more:
>
> changeset:   1624:f1eb4c28b313
> user:        lancea
> date:        Wed Sep 09 20:15:22 2009 -0400
> summary:     6737212: Fixed javadoc warning messages in RowSet classes
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/f1eb4c28b313
>   

Approved to be pushed.

> changeset:   1969:3267ca7afe95
> user:        darcy
> date:        Fri Dec 11 10:40:14 2009 -0800
> summary:     6909563: Javadoc build warnings in rmi, security, management
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/3267ca7afe95
>
> Ok to go back?
>   

I also approve this one going back with the condition that any unneeded 
changes to JDK 7-only files are removed.

Cheers,

-Joe