DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39183>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39183 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-18 23:26 ------- I agree with Mathias on this. Wouldn't it be preferable to make the source attrs semimandatory, warning if unset? Maybe you will get a lot of warnings from Gump - good. To me that just means that we are informing a lot of projects built on Gump that they forgot to do something important - set this attr, according to the actual source level of the project being built. Using "1.4" for a 1.5 project is obviously impossible, and using "1.5" for a 1.4 project is in some cases possible but not reliably - it may turn reasonably common code like Enumeration enum = loader.getResources("foo.properties"); from a warning into an error. To Matt re. adding verbosity to builds for users who "choose to ignore the documentation's boldface warning" - I doubt most people ever read the manual very carefully (or at all). They see someone using <javac> somewhere, they copy it, it seems to work, done. I can't imagine any case where you would intentionally omit the 'source' attr except out of pure laziness. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
