On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:58 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/03/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just re-published all the component sites and notice that (by > > mistake) it had used a patched copy of the > > maven-project-info-reports-plugin that I have in my local repo > > (sorry!). Anyway I submitted a patch to maven to include the Java > > version on the dependencies page. The feedback I got was they prefer > > it on the project summary page - so I submitted a patch for that as > > well. > > > > Logging is an example of using different source/target versions: > > http://commons.apache.org/logging/dependencies.html > > http://commons.apache.org/logging/project-summary.html > > The version on the latter page shows 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT. > Surely it should be 1.1.1 - which is the current version?
This is built from the current trunk - so its correct for whats in the trunk - as is the whole web site. > > BeanUtils is an example of the same source/target versions: > > http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/dependencies.html > > http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/project-summary.html > > > > Likewise, the version is not the current version. > > I think the dependencies page needs to list the POM version used to > provide the details (this is already on the summary page); I've > updated the JIRA issue accordingly. Commons Skin specifies this and with version 2.0-beta-6 of the maven-site-plugin (which commons-parent 8 specifies) it works (see the beanutils pages) - however logging overrides commons-parent specifying 2.0-beta-5 of the maven-site-plugin and the version doesn't appear - so need to remove that from logging's pom. > > My preference is to have it on the dependencies page, because I think > > people are more likely to look there - but perhaps both places would > > be good. > > Both is better. > > == > > Where a project lists multiple releases, it seems to me it would be > useful to have the dependency and project information available for > all the displayed releases, not just the current one. The patch I put forward for the mave plugin just picks up the configuration options used by the maven-compiler-plugin at the time. Working out the java versions for all releases would be many times more difficult. Probably the best way to do that would be simply to record that information in a hand-written page for each component. Not something I'm interested in doing but if you feel its important then go for it. > In any case, the information should relate to at lease one of the > releases - not whatever happens to be current in SVN which is what > seems to be happening at present. Same answer as above. Niall > > I haven't had any feedback since I submitted the second > > pacth, so If you think its a good idea for commons then it would be > > good to vote for that JIRA bug: > > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPIR-80 > > Updated and voted on. > > > > > Niall --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
