As pointed out by Mark Webb, the initial intention was to avoid having long classes without ANY javadoc.As a developper, I don't really care that a class implementing an interface also inherits the javadoc. I'd rather get some hint about which javadoc is inherited, by the explicit use of whatever @see or @inehritdoc tag. Otherwise, you have no clue if the class has been written by a lazy guy who don't care about users or by someone who consider that it's user's business to make the difference.

The fact that we are almost all using 'modern' IDE is totally irrelevant to the issue. Considering Eclipse, waiting half a second on top of a method declaration in order to get the small yellow box to open, then having to press F2 to get the full content of the javadoc, with sliders on right side and bottom is just a PITA. Having a very simple javadoc on the code is so much simpler, and cost energy to one simgle person instead of annoying hundreds. We are writing code for others, not for our own pleasure.

Now, considering your attitude : your are sometime just behaving like a stubborn childish person. You are interpreting the ASF rules at your own advantage, with no respect for person around you. Like it or not, this is not the way it works. When I asked you to revert the code, this is because we reached a point where we have to discuss the portion of code you have committed, it was not a punishment. But you took it as if I wanted to personally insult you, and you insulted me in return. I will swallow the insult, because it's just totally irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't care about what you think as a person, I care about what you do as a committer on an ASF project. This is what I want you to consider.