On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wielaard writes: > > So for non-generic/1.5 code I would like to have gjdoc still around, but > > is seems sinjdoc actually replaces gjdoc. Does it have to? > > I think so. If I didn't like the look of sinjdoc ouput I'd write a > patch for it. Sure, I assume you are fine with the default look of the sinjdoc output then. But it isn't just the look, sinjdoc doesn't support a couple of features from gjdoc, like the -linksource, -licensetext, -validhtml, @Link support in comments, etc. So it isn't just a trivial patchlet to get all the things back. Cheers, Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
