JDK-4749707 : stddoclet: Should include version number (and build) in generated HTML comment
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javadoc(tool)
  • Affected Version: 1.4.1
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: solaris_8
  • CPU: sparc
  • Submitted: 2002-09-18
  • Updated: 2014-05-05
  • Resolved: 2002-10-25
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
1.4.2 mantisFixed
Description
Name: nt126004			Date: 09/18/2002


FULL PRODUCT VERSION :
java version "1.4.1"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.1-b21)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.1-b21, mixed mode)


FULL OPERATING SYSTEM VERSION :

SunOS phoenix 5.8 Generic_108528-14 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-80

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
Recently I submitted a bug against javadoc that seemed to be
fixed already. Because of the way our build process is
constructed I had the [mistaken] idea I was working against the version
I submitted the bug for.

Therefore I suggest to include the JDK version string in the
HTML comment that is inserted in every javadoc page. That
way if you encounter a problem in javadoc you will know
which version has been responsible for the problem.

  Old:
    <!-- Generated by javadoc on Tue Sep 17 12:08:08 CEST
2002 -->

New:
    <!-- Generated by javadoc (build 1.4.1-b21) on Tue Sep
17 12:08:08 CEST 2002 -->



REPRODUCIBILITY :
This bug can be reproduced always.
(Review ID: 164693) 
======================================================================
Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: mantis FIXED IN: mantis INTEGRATED IN: mantis mantis-b05
14-06-2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS Implemented as suggested. ###@###.### 2002-09-29
29-09-2002
EVALUATION Seems like a good idea. Lowering to priority 4, as this is not a high priority request. ###@###.### 2002-09-27
27-09-2002