KAFKA-16739: Exclude protected members from aggregated release Javadocs #15940
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Greg Harris <[email protected]>
mjsax
approved these changes
May 16, 2024
…ated-javadoc-config
|
Build passes, CI test failures appear unrelated, and this passes for me locally. |
rreddy-22
pushed a commit
to rreddy-22/kafka-rreddy
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2024
…cs (apache#15940) Reviewers: Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
./gradlew javadocand./gradlew aggregatedJavadochave separate configurations that should be kept in lockstep. These have diverged twice: #13633 and #1413 and have been converged once before: #10272 .This has the effect of making it so that the aggregatedJavadoc hides protected members, because that's currently the only divergence between these configurations. This was discussed and approved in #13633, but as the change was never reflected in the official documentation, it's possible that users have not yet noticed that protected members have been missing in the last 3 minor releases.
Committer Checklist (excluded from commit message)