Re: Any ETA for maven-javadoc-plugin 3.0.0?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any ETA for maven-javadoc-plugin 3.0.0?

rfscholte
MJAVADOC-475 is about replacing a parameter, which makes it as critical as  
MJAVADOC-457.
We just consider 3.0.0 to be THE version to be able to do a cleanup, hence  
MJAVADOC-475 must be fixed as well.

The good news is: MJAVADOC-457 and MJAVADOC-475 are finished. I don't see  
any deprecated parameters anymore.

MJAVADOC-499 is a too dangerous proposal for me. So I don't mind moving  
that issue forward, it is not critical for 3.0.0, there is a workaround  
(or preferred solution depending on who you ask) for this issue.

Which means I can prepare the release this week.
Just need to ensure all CI servers still accept the changes.

thanks,
Robert

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:07:35 +0100, Mark Raynsford  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 'Ello.
>
> On 2017-11-11T14:40:16 +0100
> "Robert Scholte" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'd hope to do a release this month. Not sure if it'll be a M2 or not,
>> depends if all 3.0.0 prerequisites are met.
>
> Right.
>
> From what I can see, only MJAVADOC-475 is not really *critical* to the
> release as it's just a new feature. The other two issues, MJAVADOC-457
> and MJAVADOC-499, seem to be important. The former has been fixed, and
> the latter appears to be leaning towards being rejected. I would really
> appreciate an M2 release if MJAVADOC-475 is going to otherwise delay
> 3.0.0.
>
> If there's anything I can do to assist, I'm available. Right now,
> MJAVADOC-498 would appear to prevent the deployment of any modular
> project to Maven Central: If module A in the project depends
> on module B, then JavaDoc cannot be generated. This would necessitate
> adding a temporary workaround that submits an empty javadoc jar to
> Central (otherwise the Central ruleset rejects the deployment due to
> missing JavaDoc). I have some 30-40 projects that are itching to be
> deployed but can't be unless I add a workaround or build and deploy a
> custom version of the plugin myself. I'd obviously prefer not to have
> to do that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]