On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/03/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > In which case I think the information should probably be removed, as > it is misleading. > > > > > > 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) - > > It only appears in the page header; I meant that it should be stated > in the page body, e.g. > > instead of: > > This project requires a minimum of Java 1.3. > > it would read something like: > > Version xxx of this project requires a minimum of Java 1.3.
You can request that on the JIRA issue for the maven ticket, probably more likely to get accepted if you submit a patch with it. > > 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. > > > > Would not be necessary if the above change was implemented. And the other way round - doing that makes adding the version unnecessary. > > > > 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. > > How difficult would it be to provide the information for just the > latest release? I wouldn't really know where to start. I guess you would have to analyse the pom the release was made with - resolving properties including those inherited from commons-parent - but my patch also finds the current Java version being used - how you would find that out I don't know. Its a completely different ball game from just picking up another plugins configuration and the current java version while the project is being built. Which is why I said probably easier to just hand write. > > 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. > > I think it's important that users can easily find out which versions > of Java (and indeed which other dependencies) are required for a > particular version of a product. Thats fine to say, but someone needs to actually do it - otherwise its down to whether the devs on individual components can be bothered. Niall > > > 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
