Mark Wielaard writes: > 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. Well let's fix it then. Continuing to maintain gjdoc is not a plan. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
