Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

fix: drop jdk srzip javadoc infra #7092

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

fix: drop jdk srzip javadoc infra #7092

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sgammon
Copy link
Contributor

@sgammon sgammon commented Mar 10, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Summary

Drops the JDK source steps involved with Javadoc builds, as suggested in #7089. There will be some build warnings related to Javadoc until subsequent PRs are merged.

Split out from work in #7094

Changelog

  • chore: drop jdk srczip dependencies
  • chore: cleanup comments and config related to srczip

@sgammon
fix: drop jdk srzip javadoc infra
1a58b68 
- chore: drop jdk srczip dependencies
- chore: cleanup comments and config related to srczip

Signed-off-by: Sam Gammon <[email protected]>
This was referenced Mar 10, 2024
Open
Draft
Open
@cpovirk cpovirk mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2024
Closed
cpovirk
cpovirk reviewed Mar 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@cpovirk cpovirk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. One question in case you already gave it some thought. In the meantime, I'll try it out and see what happens.

android/guava/pom.xml
@@ -106,23 +106,8 @@
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-source-plugin</artifactId>
</plugin>
<!-- TODO(cpovirk): include JDK sources when building testlib doc, too -->
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-dependency-plugin</artifactId>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you happen to have thoughts on whether it might make sense to remove this entirely? I'm guessing so, but I'm not sure.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, it looks like you did it on the non-Android side, so probably.

@cpovirk cpovirk self-assigned this Mar 11, 2024
@cpovirk cpovirk added type=other Miscellaneous activities not covered by other type= labels package=general P2 labels Mar 11, 2024
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2024
@sgammon
Stop setting up and trying to inherit Javadoc from the JDK.
e281046 
Drops the JDK source steps involved with Javadoc builds, as suggested in #7089. There will be some build warnings related to Javadoc until subsequent PRs are merged.

Signed-off-by: Sam Gammon <[email protected]>

Gives up on the "inherting" half of #6790.

Fixes #7092

RELNOTES=n/a
PiperOrigin-RevId: 614681928
@copybara-service copybara-service bot mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2024
Merged
@cpovirk
Copy link
Member

cpovirk commented Mar 11, 2024

As for:

There will be some build warnings related to Javadoc until subsequent PRs are merged.

I got curious, and I found ValueGraph + primitives + ExecutionSequencer changes in https://github.com/google/guava/pull/7094/files#diff-2d2576b049285a93c10e132a6ad16ea883efc4bca40d4c9d68d42c93170ea424, plus AbstractFuture and ExecutionSequencer changes for what looks to me like a questionable behavior by javadoc, in which it appears to be ignoring supermethods' @throws clauses for unchecked exceptions? Thanks for taking care of those.

@cpovirk
Copy link
Member

cpovirk commented Mar 11, 2024

(And it looks like those probably exist at head, too, at least when using Java 21. That's fine; I'm just noting that this PR doesn't make things worse (even temporarily) AFAICT.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cpovirk cpovirk cpovirk left review comments

Assignees

@cpovirk cpovirk

Labels
P2 package=general type=other Miscellaneous activities not covered by other type= labels
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@sgammon @cpovirk