Regarding the scm tag, only warnings are produced from them, as what
brett stated in his doc standard email.
Brett Porter wrote:
On 27/06/2006 8:48 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi all
I've had a look at the docck plugin and I like what I see so far! A
couple of questions that popped up alo
On 27/06/2006 8:48 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi all
I've had a look at the docck plugin and I like what I see so far! A
couple of questions that popped up along the way:
There is a check to make sure there is an index.[apt|xml|...] file
present. Shouldn't a lengthy description in the pom be
yeah, I think the idea is definitely to build on this concept and use it for
documentation standards validation. I only meant to say that as of my first
edition, it was still pretty experimental.
:)
-j
On 6/26/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, I was under the impression that
Oh, I was under the impression that this was something that was going to
be used for the new and improved maven documentation.
By the way, epunzalan has made quite a lot of improvements to the plugin
since your first checkin.
--
Dennis Lundberg
John Casey wrote:
As far as I know, the docck
As far as I know, the docck plugin was just a prototype that I was
using to try to collect some basic information about the sate of
documentation in the plugins. I don't think much has happened to it
since then. I like all of your suggestions. It would be nice to
eventually go even further, and so
Hi all
I've had a look at the docck plugin and I like what I see so far! A
couple of questions that popped up along the way:
There is a check to make sure there is an index.[apt|xml|...] file
present. Shouldn't a lengthy description in the pom be good enough?
If a parameter is missing a des
