[9] Review request: 8180040: Exclude jdk.packager module from unified JDK 9 docs

[Kevin Rushforth]

I added the missing copyright header before pushing. I will file two new 
issues: one to add copyright headers to all the other package.html files 
(which I will do in JDK 9) and one to convert all of the package.html 
files to package-info.java (which I will target to 10...I don't want to 
make that change this late in 9).

Thanks again.

-- Kevin


Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>> On May 9, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
>> <Kevin.Rushforth at oracle.COM <mailto:Kevin.Rushforth at oracle.COM>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the review. We currently don't use package-info.java 
>> anywhere, but I can file a separate bug for converting all of our 
>> package.html to package-info.java.
>
> That’d be good.
>
>> I can add the the missing copyright headers at the same time.
>>
>
> OK.
>
> No need for an updated webrev.
>
> Mandy
>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>> On May 9, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please review the following to exclude jdk.packager module from the JDK docs bundle:
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180040
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180040/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> I also added a missing package description for the jdk.packager.services package (in the jdk.packager.services module), since the jdk.packager.services module will remain in the docs.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> I suggest to convert package.html to package-info.java.  Also need copyright header.
>>>
>>> build.properties change looks fine.
>>>
>>> Mandy
>