Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> 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.
Great, so do we agree on this summary?
No not really - the source and target versions don't necessarily
relate to the release either. Take codec - Henri just bumped that up
to 1.4 - but the Codec 1.3 release was (I assume) JDK 1.3 compatible.
I was asking, because I wanted to fix and close MPIR-80.
We really do need properly versioned sites, for your patch to be used
without the risk of misinformation.
Niall
- It is good to put the "source" and "target" version parameters for the
compiler plugin in the reports.
- It is bad to put the JDK version in the reports, because it is too
difficult to get the correct value for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
