Re: Classpath API javadoc

[Phillip Morelock]

of course not!!!  :)


At 27 April 2002, you wrote:

>Do you mind assigning copyright to the FSF for your documentation
>changes to Classpath?
>
>Brian
>
>Phillip Morelock <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi
>> 
>> I know I'm still new to this community, but since I'm going to 
focus my
>> efforts on documentation because I have been ruled "unclean" ;) ...
>> 
>> Resultant newbie question:  is it still "ok" to use sun's javadoc 
tool or is
>> there an appropriate free tool?  How do "they" (or you) generally 
feel about
>> using non-free tools in this context?  also, what is the state 
of such tool?
>> 
>> Forgive me, I'm still pretty new to the whole "GNU" mindset and 
don't want
>> to step on toes or whatever.
>> 
>> cheers
>> Phillip
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/27/02 12:38 PM, "Tom Tromey" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> >>>>>> "John" == John Leuner <address@hidden> writes:
>> > 
>> > John> I think it's a waste of all the effort that has gone into
>> > John> commenting code, this resource should be made available and
>> > John> people should be encouraged to use it.
>> > 
>> > I agree.  Also it will make RMS happy -- he likes it when free
>> > documentation is available so that people don't have to rely on the
>> > proprietary stuff.
>> > 
>> > About a month ago I ran javadoc on the libgcj tree.  There were 
tons
>> > of warnings.  Also the output isn't really that good.  For example,
>> > the first line of a description is used on the index pages; for our
>> > docs this line is typically not very informative, so the output is
>> > harder to use.
>> > 
>> > I think if we ran this regularly it might help us know what 
needs to
>> > be edited.  It seems to be harder to see these problems in the 
source
>> > than it is in the output.
>> > 
>> > Tom
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Classpath mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
>> 
>
>-- 
>Brian Jones <address@hidden>
>