Apereo Header

[Greg Logan]

Hi all,

I'm working on [1], and running into the issue of Intellij's formatter eating our license header.  It replaces the blank lines with <p>, which is technically correct wrt to javadocs formatting.  It also removes the blank line at the end of the license.  Both of these changes cause checkstyle to complain.

Gregor helped me fix the blank line issue for now, but I can't seem to find a way to keep the blank line.  So obvious next questions:

- Do these *actually* need to be javadocs?  Turning them into block comments would (IMO, IANAL) be the best solution here, and would remove the rest of the issues.  And also cause the fewest merge conflicts.

- Do we actually want to keep the trailing blank line?  IMO no, so this is a non-issue as long as we're ok removing it from the license template.

- Can we replace the blanks we *do* want with proper <p> lines so that the javadocs are correct and the code formatters don't 'fix' it for us?  I feel like this would be fairly easy to resolve merge conflict wise, and likely doesn't impact the legality of the license header.

My long term goal would be to be able to trust the output of a formatter (I'm not picky on whose), but we're not quite there yet :)

G

1: https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5061

[Daniel Ziegenberg]

Here are my2cents so that this message no longer stands out alone in the open.

I suggest that we use normal comments. Having the license header in a javadoc comment doesn't give us any advantage.

I checked two random open-source projects for reference (apache/commons-lang and apache/karaf) and both use just a normal comment for the license header.

See also: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26075364

[Greg Logan]

Agreed.  Filed as https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5120

G

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dev+uns...@opencast.org.

[Walter Bux]

Please remove my address from your mailing list

Walter 

--