On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> Niall Pemberton 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 part about "It has been built using Java 1.5" in the dependencies > >> >> report isn't accurate. 1.5 is the version used (by you) to build and > >> >> publish the site. I used 1.4 when I did the logging release, so > having > >> >> anything else there is misleading. I think that part should be > removed. > >> >> What extra value does it give to users, providing it was correct? > >> > > >> > I could ask the same question of maven and the Build-Jdk it puts in > >> > the manifest which is really mis-leading since the source/target > >> > settings are missing - except here in commons. > >> > >> The Build-Jdk in this case is the actual JDK that was used to produce > >> the jar file. So it is correct. Having the source and target in there is > >> much better though, for the reasons you mention below. > >> > >> > >> > My answer though is its a warning - since setting the target option > >> > doesn't actually guarantee it will run on that version if API's from > >> > later java versions have been used. > >> > >> But in this case it's not a warning. It the JDK that was used to build > >> the *site* - not the jar file. That doesn't tell a user anything. > > > > OK looks like we're mis-communicating here - what exactly did you mean > > by "providing it was correct" in your original question? I took it to > > mean "providing it was the value used to build the jar for the > > release". > > Right, that's what I meant.
OK well that was the question I was answering - not if it wasn't correct which I didn't disagree with. Niall > But in the case of the currently deployed site of commons-logging, the > JDK used to build the released jar is not the same as the JDK that was > used to build the site. > > By this I mean that it is impossible (or at least very hard) to know > what JDK was used to build the jar file. Simply because they might be > built by different people on different platforms at different points in > time. The only way to know for sure would be to inspect the jar file > itself, as suggested by sebb. But, as is the case here, that jar file > might have already been deployed. > > The JDK used to build the jar file is what is interesting to our users. > They couldn't care less which version was used to build the site. Right? > > > > > > Niall > > > >> > Niall > >> > > >> >> This is related to publishing versioned sites that I touched upon in > >> >> another mail. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > Niall > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
