Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 315693 - Internal packages have not been marked x-internal
Summary: Internal packages have not been marked x-internal
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Java Server Faces
Classification: WebTools
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2 RC4   Edit
Assignee: Cameron Bateman CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: PMC_approved
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-06-03 18:28 EDT by Cameron Bateman CLA
Modified: 2010-06-04 15:31 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
david_williams: pmc_approved+
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (naci.dai)
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (deboer)
neil.hauge: pmc_approved+
kaloyan: pmc_approved+
raghunathan.srinivasan: review+

Attachments
Make affected packages x-internal (1.82 KB, text/plain)
2010-06-03 18:28 EDT, Cameron Bateman CLA 		no flags Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Cameron Bateman CLA 2010-06-03 18:28:13 EDT 
Created attachment 171040 [details]
Make affected packages x-internal

The packages in the patch are in existing "internal" folder and were mistakenly not marked x-internal:=true explicitly.  This this needs to be done to avoid confusion.
Comment 1 Cameron Bateman CLA 2010-06-03 18:28:56 EDT 
Please review for RC4.  This is a low-risk, non-code affecting change.
Comment 2 Raghunathan Srinivasan CLA 2010-06-03 18:55:08 EDT 
* Explain why you believe this is a stop-ship defect. Or, if it is a "hotbug"
(requested by an adopter) please document it as such. 
This bug inadvertently promotes code in an 'internal' package as public API. These should be marked x-internal to avoid confusion
* Is there a work-around? If so, why do you believe the work-around is
insufficient? 
No workaround
* How has the fix been tested? Is there a test case attached to the bugzilla
record? Has a JUnit Test been added? 
Code review.
* Give a brief technical overview. Who has reviewed this fix? 
See description
* What is the risk associated with this fix?
none
Comment 3 David Williams CLA 2010-06-04 12:51:01 EDT 
I think we can count this as "documentation". Please do use care when releasing. 

This is especially important, I think, if/when someone tries to use the "API Tools" from PDE to see if they are using non-API.
Comment 4 Cameron Bateman CLA 2010-06-04 15:31:13 EDT 
Patch applied to HEAD (M4).